One thing to note regarding cost-effective planes Vs more expensive planes is that you will be building up experience on your airwing more slowly, since they die more. I don't know at what point this could start being an issue but it is worth thinking about, since veterancy gives some really really big bonuses to airwings.
I'm sure you have a hundred things you're wanting to test but if I can through my idea into the ring test the CAS designer, it gives +10% ground attack but in my tests that took the air wings from 800 manpower lost to 2000 manpower lost so the +10% attack caused +150% damage
Hello, long time no see. By Blood Alone is finally out so I have something to make videos on. I do realize there is no thumbnail. For some reason it didn't save before I left home. So I can either go with the auto generated thumbnail from RU-vid or delay releasing the video by 8 or so hours. I went with the first one. I'll fix it when i get home.
thank god... we need your videos. I am surprised at the lack of content in the last 48 hours from youtubers but more importantly, you're one of the few that dives deep into numbers and explanations. this one dude had a 6+ hour video that made me want gouge out my eyeballs
>"You can't really do close air support and air superiority missions at the same time with the same air wing” That might not be true. According to the “Air combat” (not “Air warfare”) page on the wiki all planes, not just fighters, can sortie against enemy planes: “Air wings sortie in descending order of air attack and agility against detected enemies, so fighters and heavy fighters will generally do most of the damage dealing. If enough enemies are detected, bombers can also deal air damage though.“ So having only fighter bombers on CAS mission might be an idea, since they’ll do ground attack damage and division bonus, while doing almost the same damage to enemy fighters. Of course, the wiki isn't always correct, so its worth testing.
While it's true that a fighter bomber can't do all tasks at the same time, I would assume it would still make more sense if you're playing mids or minor powers for the factory efficiency and the ability to shift air wings to different tasks as necessary. Though it's reasonable to assume that a split between such with the same core airframe basis may make sense for them. Is there any chance you could do some testing and recommendations for mids and minors who want an air force but have to minimize tech choices?
i had the same thought as well, if all you can spare is some 6 factories better spend 6 factories on a single plane solution than x2 3 factories on two different designs. better production and better logistics. it halves the amount of planes you need to keep in stockpile.
@71Cloak great video! Interesting that agility is not as important anymore. I had this crazy idea to go Battlefield Support and build CAS only with high air attack. CAS gets a 20% AG bonus in that doctrine which would give them the same AG as regular fighters w/ Air Supremacy doctrine + designer. Not sure if this would work though as the CAS mission suffers an AG debuff but I'm unsure whether that's a static effect always applied when the mission is active or only when they're actively supporting in land battles.
You can do this and it can be very strong, but keep in mind that you won't be nearly as effective if you have to use your multirole planes to intercept bombers or fight over sea zones. Since your stat bonuses are almost entirely tied to doing CAS missions with battlefield support you will get shredded by fighters with operational integrity or strategic destruction. This strategy is probably only viable in single player or as the USSR in MP (and only if you know you won't be strat bombed in enemy fighter range).
@@blahmaster6k To be honest Battlefielddoctrine isn´t that bad. It´s in terms of Airsupperiority nearly even to Str. Destr., except for the different AG bonusses.
@@dr.wahnsinn9913 this is what I thought at first as well but if you actually build a CAS template you'll see the bonus of the designer will not be applied. Essentially they've changed 'fighter' to 'light aircraft hull' but kept other categories separate like naval bombers being 'light maritime aircraft hull'. It's really confusing.
@Dr.Wahnsinn @blahmaster6000 If one of you might care, I just tested this in the same style 71Cloak does. Difference between both doctrines fully researched is zero-to-none, assuming Air Superiority Mission Efficiency bonuses are chosen in both paths. That fact alone makes me favour BS doctrine as I love CAS. SD Doctrine with designer-boosted fighters are technically slightly better, as they have 10% more speed and 2x 10% AG bonus is technically more than 1x 20% AG bonus, but the difference in actual testing was once again negligible. Tested this with '36, '40 and '44 fighters and 'CAS fighters', same results. Obviously I made the designs the same but only switched around primary weapons for the plane type. Also, important note: 1944 CAS can only have 2 Fighter Weapons while 1944 Fighters can have 3 Fighter weapons due to how the light aircraft slots work! I guess that means my CAS fighters plan will get slaughtered past 1944...
9:00 point of order: When doing Ground Sup/Strat Bombing, the planes still go into battle and all, with some modules/buffs taking effect IF you are on these missions. Some are attached to modules, while others are from aces/bugs. The point of doing this isn't to have them be fighters; Its to have their fighters on Intercept get pincered, since when they're not being attacked by your fighters, they're in air fights with your 'cas' that has more damage and air defense than them.
yeah, the multirole seems not to work well, the ground attack value is just to low. but i think for CV-Fighters it actualy makes sense to put Bomb-Locks on it. i have to test it. btw. "Glas-Cannon-CAS" is not recommendable. i had CAS wit 40ish Ground Attack, they were dying very, very, very quick 🙂
CAS overall has been nerfed quite a bit. Before you could easily do 35 division damage a day with 1000 cas but with all the introduction of airplane designer you now need 3000-5000 planes to be lucky to do that much. Much better off just taking advantage of air superiority modifiers and maybe squeezing in a railway gun or two instead.
@@youtuberobbedmeofmyname it would give you unlimited manpower. You could keep duplicating and it would just keep giving you the manpower . Of course paradox would charge you 20 bucks for some limited changes and not even fixing broken code they’ve known about for a year.
They removed it because you don't need it anymore: you can have 3 "quick deploy" button for 3 specif airwing type. Honestly, when they fix the "non reinforce" bug that you have in some specific situation, the air management will be so much better than before. You can filter for aircraft type when you look for a specific airwing, that was so much necessary...
I find this amazing that its basically speeds and the guns on the plane that matter the most. You could argue that that was also the case during ww2. Being fast, climbing quicker, and packing a bigger punch than your opponents plane
You could put 2x2 Cannons 2 and 1x4 HMG. That seems maximize firepower, and there is stile room for defense. As damage is attack/defense that mean we should maximize multiplication of attack and defense (same as in ck3). So defense is more valuable in that sense.
In order to have one airplane trade evenly with 2 planes, it would have to have 4 times firepower with same defense, speed and agility. ck3 match, and it is quite analog, is number_of_troops * sqrt(attack * defense) .
@@youtuberobbedmeofmyname More like British. Hell they had a guy do a presentation that all future planes of the British RAF must have no less than 8 MGs of rifle caliber or better on all planes.
I know you want to test many things, but one interesting idea: can you make a CAS only build to exploit the battlefield support agility bonus? You make basically a fighter with 1 bomb lock as first slot. That's 1IC more, but now your fighter is classified as CAS, and should get CAS bonuses from battlefield support doctrine. Is that anyway useful?
Great to see you back, I made the exact same fighter iìon my first playthrough too because it just felt right, glad to know I wasn't wrong Do you have plans on tests involving cas? I found that cas take a lot of damage now which seems to make defense extremely important
@@arya.n.8252 During my invasion of the USA, with green air, 30 mils on cas with full efficiency who've been going for a while, I actually started getting a deficit in CAS. I had to switch production to keep up and still I barely managed to. I think Tac bombers are probably going to be the new meta if they can stack more defense
I really like the trade off between massively expensive planes that will out-trade in terms of IC against regular planes at the cost of air superiority in a zone at the start of a war. That's such a cool mechanic. Seems really fun for the Axis. Do they want big, expensive fighters that will trade against the Allies well for a longer time or the tiny, cheap ones that will dominate the skies so they blitz through France and North Africa, but they'll have to cope with bad air for the rest of the game?
Competing in the air as a minor nation has become really hard. I managed as Canada but it took a LONG time to get the mass necessary to compete. I found a medium frame with decent armor was best, I couldn’t handle the attrition like Germany or Italy could. Upside, fuel was never an issue really, and I didn’t need to even have a army, I could go pure air and let the rest of the commonwealth take care of the rest
question did you consider the air detection ratio? cause with the more expensive, but fewer planes they aren't at 100% -> if there are other planes on mission as well, that mith change the ratio
I agree with basically everything in this video, but if we're going to bring in fuel cost to discard double engines as the meta (which I agree wholeheartedly with), why shouldn't we prefer 3x HMG over 1x Cannon 1x HMG when doing cannons adds another base 200 days of research and a 1940 tech when we can just bypass all of that? In my mind triple HMG wins easily in a real game simply because of the research constraint.
The research barrier is the same reason why I don't consider modern engines for tanks a top priority. Doesn't really make too much of a difference when you can win every combat. Gotta strike a decent balance between stats but not always. If an enemy makes modern eq a priority, they will always have a later build up and therefore less eq. Lets say you want the most modern Heavy 2's and you wont produce any tanks until then, well you just screwed yourself because your enemy will have Heavy 1's and you won't. Its pretty much the same with Air. We already know what is going to yield good results so just B-Line the research, produce as many as you can as fast as you can, and win. You can think about maxxing later if your enemies live longer/get stronger. Maybe you still lose so you have to fine tune your existing design and play more conservatively.
In our recent mp game hungary came up with a idea to rush heavy fighter 2 and slap on it best 1940 twin engine, heavy mg in all slots and armor plates likewise. The resulting beast had 65 ic. I was sceptical of this but the results were monstrous. Allies had three times more planes yet they couldnt achieve air superiority and were trading horribly.
Single player here. Did anyone in your games come up with the idea of using a country with the generic focus tree, rush the ideal heavy fighter and then license it to an ally with a larger industrial base ? I did that as democratic Cuba, but sadly, the AI doesn't want to license build my superb aircraft, as the Cuban Air Force was dominating the skies wherever it went in support of the Allies. The generic focus tree has the fighter and bomber focuses, so it's either 2x 100% bonus research speed on light and medium airframes or 2x 100% for medium and heavy airframes respectively. Where it gets scary is the fact the focus tree has wonder weapons and rocket effort. With those 2 focuses, you could rush jet engines, which can be retrofitted to *ALL* airframes as long as they're from 1940 or later. Yes, that 1940 heavy fighter you designed with 2 piston engines can be modified for a few air XP points to create a new variant wielding 4 jet engines, and change the production line to use that new variant while barely losing production efficiency... Also if it hasn't been discovered yet, strap as many light MG turrets on the heavy fighter as possible ; they provide 4 air attack for only 1 weight each, which is the best ratio of air attack to weight for any module. Also, heavy MGs may not be that good ; while they don't reduce agility, and have the best air attack to weight ratio among the fighter modules IIRC, they're utterly outclassed by cannons in air attack. Instead of for example 4 quad heavy MG modules on a heavy fighter for 48 air attack, you could have 2 double cannon modules, which is 40 air attack for cannon I, and 56 air attack for cannon II. With my heavy fighters, I fill the remaining slots with bomb locks ; that way, they're heavy fighters to get some bonuses in the air doctrines, have 1.25 air superiority per aircraft, and I can do a very decent amount of damage on the ground with CAS and logistics strikes. You can also improve the ground attack for these missions with some electronics modules, which can be quite significant for the cost and weight. In the late game, my heavy fighters also have 2 double cannon turrets, because 4 jet engines provide more than enough thrust and I get fighters with 84 air attack...
@@KenshiroPlayDotA Germany has also 2x 100% medium airframe/heavy fighter bonuses, it was super worth doing them even prior to bba because heavy fighters were trading always better than the 4ic cost increase could dry them down.
Sounds to me the allies didnt know how to design proper planes. 71 cloaks results are pretty obvious! Also what about AA? Dont tell me Axis never built AA anywhere.
I wish it would end up more like the pentagram in games, with strong against/weak against. Agility kicks ass of speed, while defense, stops agility, but is kicked by pure attack like maybe higher agility multiplies your damage x1.1, and lowers their advantage in speed by leftover agility x10km/h if you have high speed advantage after that, your side rolls for damage first. (like 100km/h) otherwise battle ticks should happen in parallel. Rolling damage 0.2 to 1x your attack, and 0.5-1 as defense multipliers. If defense is higher than attack, you ignore the agility multiplier as well. While attack is way higher than defense, you should have high chance for instant kill. (taking the wing out or stuff). And every fight should be like 10 ticks of fire exchanges. + extra one for the one with higher agility at the end, let's say one per extra 5 agility points, if speed is the same, one per 10 if speed is 100km/h lower, 15 per if 300 lower etc. Then throw weather, like bad weather lowers agility and speed by percentage and accident chance, throw it cold/hot weather negative effect (agility by icing the wings or overheating taking top speed), mountains giving extra accident chance, and agility affecting that chance. you have 30 random parameters that can be used to affect air fight, and make parameters trade blows to one another.
the naval meta is never EVER leave port because you be instantly fistfucked by a maritime patrol squadron 3000km away. seriously, maritime patrol planes are twice as expensive as the naval bombers of last patch but do 3x as much damage, have 3x the range, and better naval targeting on top of all that
By the way double engines have already been nerfed in the open beta. Now they add more thrust but less speed than single engines. So they are basically useless unless you really need the thrust
Thank goodness. First thing that stood out to me when I started poking around was that... 4 engine heavy fighters looked like they were a legitimate thing. Compared to twin engines they give you a huge speed boost (which now also buffs damage apparently) for a very marginal cost increase. I feel like an agility debuff with increasing number of engines would make more sense though than a speed reduction... there were plenty of wicked fast twin-engine aircraft, their disadvantage was manoeuvrability...
I’m still trying to figure out exactly how things are calculated/work. Like is there a benefit to having more air attack than their air defense? Or is having 1 over the same as having 20 attack over?
Remember that they added that function to comapare equipment, it might be useful for your videos to show different set ups, though I understand that you might not want to do it because it's annoying to set up.
@@swedichboy1000 open the air designer (or any designer, it should work for the other as well) and click the "equipment" icon on the top right. It's the one beside the close button. You can select to compare to your own design or foreigns ones. The foreigns one appears there depending if you have capture that equipment or if you have high enough intel. There was a dev diary explaining this mechanic more in-depth, you can look for that.
The important part of the air damage equation is the air attack/air defense--both. Quantity matters--but let's be real, by barb everyone has thousands of extra planes laying around. There are only so many fighters you're going to get involved in the air battle which favors the higher IC planes. You can do a 4 engine, 4x cannon 2, 2x armor, 1x sealing fuel tanks heavy fighter and it'll never lose the air war. They'll trade 5 to 1 against high agility light fighter designs. Plus they'll have 2000km range, which opens up congested air spaces/grounds to additional fighters.
Hi Mr Cloak, i was wondering what are the implication of Air defense against AA (aka : is more armor the better against aa ?) , against bomber (aka : is it usefull to put armor up in interception mode ?) and speed (does speed impact interception ?) and to the last : is there any way to avoid having naval bomber killed by mere convoy AA by design, more armor, more speed, more agility ? Thanks Mr Cloak !
What about CAS though I've been trying to make the cheapest CAS aircraft I can (and also make a CAS Heavy fighter because I got screwed over by range issues one too many times in the past) and going with that My design has been 2 AT canons (haven't tried rockets yet) and the cheapest engine that can carry that and drops, is this a good idea?
How much your ground attack values? My design is medium airframe with medium bomb bay, 2 small bomb bay and a bomb lock for 25 ground attacks, two light machine gun turret for air attack with total production cost of 49. Serve me good
@@engineer1941 nope I mean the air wings. They got rid of the duplicate button, but it’s still possible to quick deploy air wings. Not sure about manpower
How much resources/ equipment would it save you over the course of a game if you kept some initial factories producing simple infantry equipment for your garrison (not allowing the template access to the newest equipment)
It won't save you equipment but will allow you to produce a bit more because they are cheaper and will maintain their production efficiency. You can do it if you want. There really isn't any harm to it.
One thing to note is that twin Rifle-Calibre Machine Guns actually have significantly better attack:cost and attack:weight than HMGs or cannons. So until you hit the module limit, an aircraft with the same air attack using (twin) Rifle-Calibre Machine Guns will be both cheaper and faster. Therefore it seems as though you should max out with (twin) .30 MGs first, then only add HMG or cannon modules as needed to reach your desired air attack. Quad rifle-calibre MGs don't have the same weight scaling, so while they still have the best attack:cost ratio, they have slightly worse attack:weight than HMGs or Cannon IIs.
You are so right best 2xlight machine gun 4 attack for 1 weight 4 attack per weight hmg 2x 6 for 2 3 attack per w. Hmg4x 12 for 4 12/4=3 again cannon 1 x2 20 for 10 2per weight cannon 2 x2 28 for 10 2.8 also agility tho so best to worst [ 4xhmg, 2xlmg, 2xcannon2,] i would not even use others
So heavy fighters are currently universal fighters, since they trade about equally against light fighters, and are better against everything else. How disappointing. Agility should give light fighters an edge against heavy fighters, but heavy fighters excel against bombers due to having max bonus from agility anyway. Seems like the premises of the system are sound, but the implementation is lacking. Another random idea. Would it be feasible to go entirely without fighters for offensive air power, and just have CAS armed to the teeth and massively protected to allow them to do their job without fighter escorts? Like the Flying Fortress concept, but applied to CAS rather than strategic bombers. CAS gives air superiority just like fighters, and while you won't be stopping enemy CAS and TAC from bombing your ground troops, you can make up for it by bombing enemy ground troops even harder.
I played around a bit in the plane designer, seems like I was mistaken. I thought the option of putting two engines on a small airframe meant making it into a heavy fighter with two engine compartments on the wings with a propeller each. Apparently it rather just means having two engines in the nose of the aircraft, both connected to the crankshaft of the propeller. Actual heavy fighters are using the medium airframe. I played around a little and found that you can make a decent alternative to CAS by having a medium airframe, having a gun or cannon as primary weapon, bomb locks as all secondary weapons, and use the bottom slots for turrets and protection. From a quick look at equivalent tech levels it seems like you get about the same amount of ground attack per IC, with the heavy fighter having higher air defense per IC (but worse agility, but does CAS actually need it?) and the advantage of longer range, which is particularly useful early on in getting full coverage over air zones, when small airframe craft have poor range.
The best fighter you can make is a heavy fighter with armour stacked all along the bottom with as many heavy machine guns that you can strap onto it. It's like 65IC but it will beat any fighter design made in 1940 at a rate where the high IC cost doesn't matter due to the stupidly high air defense.
Hmm, i didn't expect Paradox to allow twin engines on fighters to be honest. Most fighter planes used a single engine while twin engines being more common on heavy fighters.
Now I'm curious you can stack more then one armour plating on the bigger planes so if you get the air defence high enough does that make hev fighters actually decent or is agility still play to big off a role to ignore with more air defence. ( For example take the same guns 2x cannon 4x HMG's but give the med air frame all slots armour, it gets more air defence then the fighters air attack does that make it effective enough for the cost difference?
I just did a small self test, it isn't the best test I'll admit, but both basic frames, both with the same gun lay out, made the small fighter the same as the one in your video gave the med frame all armour slots costs 52 ic with level 2 4x engines and it seems to out trade quite well ( and by quite well I mean 4k small fighters vs 1k hev fighters = hev fighters out trading still.
@@fenrir5449 That sounds like a total crap shoot for an MP game. Not saying its useless but at a certain point it is just better to go with the smaller cost design. Its 52 IC for gods sake.
@@youtuberobbedmeofmyname I mean when you have 1000 vs 4000 and you win that 52 IC is quite cost effective and less planes up means less fuel used soo -shrug-
Air attack seems like it might be a bit over-tuned (or agility is over-nerfed and speed is not buffed enough to compensate), at least when it comes to fighter v fighter combat. When comparing the 2xCannon + 4xHMG vs 12xHMG aircraft, it doesn't make much sense that a faster, more agile aircraft with 12x .50 would lose out. Both aircraft are more heavily armed than any country's single-engine fighters, barring a few quad-cannon examples.
Could you test paratrops? They dont seems to work 90% of the time after dlc, only sometimes they launch. (Enough transport, region selected, air superiority ensured, template can be paratropped, enough suplies, correctly asigned)
I just tried if the Italy speedrunning thing is still working, and I still capped France Paradropping behind the lines in 2 seconds. I did not have issues, except that I failed a paradrop on my own territory. I don't know exactly why
@@12gark found problem in forums... paratroopers only work if only 1 is assigned per plan. After reading it i went to my save, tried only assigning 1 at a time, it worked
its a bit of a shame that just maxing Air Attack and Air Defense gets you the best plane I was really hoping PDX would make the best design something that balances firepower and speed/maneuverability, and I believe the tools are there for PDX to reflect this balance. My proposal is to make Air Defense a threshold stat, like Armor/Penetration: Air Attack damage is heavily reduced by Air Defense until Air Attack exceeds the Air Defense number. *ANY ADDITIONAL AIR ATTACK OVER THE ENEMY PLANE'S AIR DEFENSE IS CAPPED, AND THEREFORE WASTED DAMAGE* This change would bring a delicate balance to the plane designer, where you need JUST ENOUGH Air Attack to penetrate Air Defense, but you still want to stick as few guns as you can get away with so that you aren't wasting IC and agility advantage This also means you could design your planes to be tailored to fight against a specific enemy design, which would make the intel game especially important
Yes, I feel like they were trying to do a Stellaris type approach (Rock Paper Scissors, or "Armor, Guns and Lasers") to Air Designs but the most important factor in HOI4 they forgot was Intel is still not fleshed out enough to tell you exactly which designs the enemy is using AND even if you knew their designs you would have to spend a ton of time reconfiguring your planes to counter. You could be dead by then.
Does someone know why if attach an airwing to an army after a bit that airwing will deactivate the mission I assigned to it? I hope they would fix it with this update but nothing changed :(
What's definitely hurting the multi-role aspect is wings of 100 Goddamn aircraft not being able to perform multiple roles. And I find it hilarious that there's no modules for things like dive flaps,combat flaps,better control surfaces,so on,so forth.
@@NareshSinghOctagon Most videos I have seen are comparing fighters IE air superiority. You would have to wait for a video comparing CAS for that. Dive brakes do absolute piss all on a fighter.
Do you guys anticipate a patch to reduce the IC cost of planes? Cause planes now are really expensive like 71cloak said. 42 IC just for a decent fighter? Compared to fighter 3s in older versions that never costed more than 28 IC.
I hope not. This is more fun and I really didn't like the gameplay before where the war was decided in large part by who owned the sky and had CAS to throw around. It should be important, but visually it doesn't look all that interesting. Moving troops and tanks is way more engaging than watching air zones.
@@NicholasW943 I agree as WW2 was still more about the infantry but with armor and air power being important but covering overall smaller areas of the battlefield at any given time. Air support such as CAS would cover a distinctive push on the ground by infantry in a small geographical area the same as armor but BOTH were actually to support the advances of infantry not the other way round. As production cost and needed resources to build planes and armor continue to go higher AA and Anti-tank with the infantry units will continue to make the decisions of when to actually risk deploying the air and armor assets in battle more important and not just seen in every engagement on the battlefield. To me as a new single game player to the franchise this adds more to the strategy than just building more planes and tanks to overpower your opponent. I would like to see though that there would be the ability to toggle on/off historical accuracies in all plane, vehicle and equipment build options as to what the nation was actually fielding during those time periods as one of the game options in setting up the games perimeters for the more historical playthroughs.
Wait they deleted duplicate button? before BBA: create 1 100 size wing for a plane type, click literally once to duplicate it whenever u get more planes after BBA: create 1 100size wing with like 1 less click, click literally the same amount of times every time u want to deploy more planes seems like a net loss of clicks to me
Are carrier planes bugged? I haven't seen carrier planes sink a single ship so far in any of my playthroughs since the update, perhaps it's because naval battles aren't considered a mission and since all of the naval attack is only applied if the planes are on the naval strike mission, it's using the base stats of 1 attack 1 targeting, could you test that?
They dont seem to do much of anything. Wouldn't be surprised if they just aren't flying at all. Or maybe the naval bombers are trying to do the wrong mission.
yeah i made agile fast plane , but it just loses to planes with more attack , plane with just MG cant shot bombers now too , medium bombers! , its broken.
honestly Im happy with the fact planes cost almost double since it will kinda kill the meta of spamming them and we might not see the 10k fighters by 1940
I don't prefer the old one. This new one is absolutely a step in the right direction. The old one needed mods to be usable. This one works right out of the box, looks good. We all knew that Air wings >100 increased air accidents anyway. The only thing missing is air wing sizes below 100 and the dupe button.
The "agility vs. speed" debate actually did have a very decisive outcome in the context of unguided a2a combat... and the winner was speed! Agility was important, and having a non-agile plane was always an issue, but the speed of the plane was paramount in the planes ability to decide when and how to engage.
I just want to plays as it was in history, the real german fighters that was developed, against the same the ,french, english and the soviets etc. And everything to happend as it did in history. That should be an option when devoloping tanks etc, but mainly the events that occured etc . ( excuse my english ) from sweden :)
well war is very unpredictable, and i think that if the same scenario played out in HOI 4 every game it would mean that HOI 4 is too fixed and scripted, when it's supposed to be a sandbox. Also I agree that there should be a historical button that automatically creates the historical design of whatever your building. Paradox should focus on making historical designs the meta instead of stuff that wasn't used in real life. Your english is really good btw 👍
ah once again hoi4 devs have worked hard to make balance and flavor worse. Before: speed and agility are the primary factors in a dogfight (like in real life, after pilot skill of course) now: big gun all that matter, who care if you no can turn!.
Yeah, unfortunately for you... Speed has always mattered more than agility in a2a combat. Agility, while cool.... Doesnt give you the awesome power of determining when and if you even fight. Speed does.
@@71Cloak Thanks for the reply! I'm playing as Yugoslavia but getting absolutely bullied both by Italy and Germany lol. Is there any particular types of planes I should focus on unlocking? Also, I made some brand new planes but I have zero soldiers left to start using them. What should I do?
Nice video, a off topic question . Is something changed with paradrop orders ???coz my paratroopers(30w) seem to paradrop with 0 org. I was not training them, clicked on order with full org, complete green air. Also a new modifier for paradrop appears in battle screen. I used one wing of 100 transport planes, and was not able to paradrop more than 2 at a time. Your help is appreciated, as I am not able to find any solution to it online eithe as dlc is kinda new.
I also had this problem, but I've already had it since the last update (albeit on Kaiserreich, but I don't think that makes a difference in this case). It just makes Paratroopers so much less viable because they will always die unless something is completely undefended
So air attack gives you more dice rolls and therefore, better? Defense raises the amount of air rolls necessary making it more expensive to shoot one down. How does a really really cheap plane go up against these?
I mean, nerfing agility and putting the emphasis on air attack and speed is....kinda accurate. Or at least way more accurate than putting the emphasis on agility.
Historically, the emphasis was on airspeed and altitude, and secondarily having enough "Attack" to get through the target's "Defense" in a timely manner.
1:16 Small fighters with twin engine are just stupid. Realistically, the engines on the wings would make the plane less agile. Also, realistically, it's an option to just have one bigger engine.
@@PikaPilot but also the potential for higher speed. In a game that doesn't care about agility anymore, nothing you just mentions is detrimental. Although they have already rebalanced thrust since this video came out.
Sort of. Light fighters with cannons still slightly out perform light fights with just heavy mg. Otherwise just add as much defence as range requirements permits.
When working out the number of planes for your tests just swap the IC costs, if you have a cheap 20ic vs an armoured 21ic 20 air wigs of the armoured cost the same as 21 air wings of the cheap Armoured cost 21 ic and have 20 wings so 21*20*100 total cost Cheap cost 20 ic and have 21 wings so 20*21*100 total cost It's a simple way to ensure that you are getting exactly the same cost for both sides without needing and calculation
I don't get why wouldn't paradox make more engines make agility stats significantly lesser. I mean, isn't it a common sense fitting big chunky engines on planes makes them fat and less agile? Now its just engine spam. Put more engines, boom you win. 2 engines on fighters, 4 engines on tac bombers, 6 engines on strat bombers. This is NOT right.
You know, I think there's a lot worse outcomes than the early meta being pretty much flat out an FW 190, with designs a lot like a typhoon or a P-47 being sound. I will say I think bomb mounts on fighters can be well worth it if you expect to have enough superiority that your fighters would otherwise be doing nothing after they clear the skies.
Speed determines how much DMG will take . If you're faster than the other plane you will lose less planes. So its air Defense bonus vs the other plane . AGI Adds to Air Attack vs the other plane Default is 30%bonus . If your AGI is Higher it adds a 30% AA and depuffs the Enemies AA defense plane by that much also. 30% is in my Opinion way to high. With the CAS bonus in Doctrine . The CAS-STuka will out Dog Fight a Spitfire. PDX is so silly LOL
