Thank you man of science for doing the work for us, I would have never have known or guessed there was a cap on Strat bombing. It's hard to find un-obnoxious and informative Hoi4 videos, I look forward to watching more of your stuff
Well that's kinda lame that turrets do nothing. There was a reason countries put them on their bombers, and the only reason they stopped was the speeds and engagement distances become to great for them to matter anymore, but before that they helped greatly with limiting the ability of fighters to attack bombers.
One thing that I tested (and loved) recently is that you can have -80% night penalty AND -50% visibility while strat bombing at night with UK. It's REALLY good to reduce UK investment on escort fighters and you almost don't lose strat bombers (sometimes you can even kill more than lose)
@@myrten3124 First, I mistyped, it was -80% Chief of Airforce (Charles Portal, -20%), Night Bombing (-50% if left) or Infiltration Bombing (-50% vis, if right), Radio Navigation 2 (-20%), Air To Ground Radar 2 (-40%, you CAN rush with uk)
A meme that I found is that you can completely get rid of the night penalty with 1941 tech for strat bombers. Air to ground Radar 2 (1941 RADAR tech) gives you -40% and radio navigation gives you -20%. Combine that with the -50% with doctrine and you get rid of the night penalty completely. How much does this affect the damage of strat bombers? From what I've heard, strat bombing at night does less damage, so surely getting rid of the night penalty will make you do more damage over all?
Just threw a mod together to test some of this myself. Firstly, that AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING define isn't a cap on strat bombing. In fact when i changed it to 10 or even to 1 the strat bombers still did the exact same amount of damage as when AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING was at the default of 100. AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING doesn't do anything for strategic bombing. Secondly, i suspect that the real reason why the 132 bomber didn't do all that much more damage than the 96 one was because even with instant construction germany still couldn't repair fast enough to keep up. Construction lines for repairing seems to only be able to repair 1 building at a time even if 5 are destroyed if they all are on the same construction line. Which means that if the strat bombers destroy more than one of the same building per day then they are eventually going to run out of buildings to destroy even though instant construction is active.
Also it seems like every air wing can only target a single building type at a time which meant that even though my modded 12k strat bombing planes only needed to sneeze in the general direction of germany to wipe all civs in a state that sneeze didnt do a single point of damage to the railroads, infrastructure and other buildings in the same state let alone the civs and other buildings in other states.
Each tick was 2-3 buildings worth of damage or 6-9 a day. In an air region that had at least 5 civs per region (I added more to make sure they didn't run out of buildings). When i was watching it I only ever saw 5 or maybe 6 lines of repair and they were getting fulled repaired every day and replaced by different stats getting bombed. I don't know, it seems like the damage is getting capped. Might just be by the number of buildings in each province though because each province had on average 5 civs or mils.
@@71Cloak Are you sure that they were getting fully repaired before being bombed again? Personally when i was testing it i did it by fully bombing out germany, then stopping my strats from bombing anymore, tagging over to germany, turning on ic and then watching the construction queue quite clearly only repair one civ per day per line. I even modded civs to construct over a thousand times faster and still only one building per day per line was being repaired.
@@Roatze I really don't believe the buildings were getting completely bombed out. I think the only difference in bombing figures for the 2 regions is density related. I have seen ic get overwhelmed before and that didn't look like it.
As far as I can find, you're the FIRST guy to try to explain the new air meta. And as much as I love the guy, you're a lot easier to follow than Feedback. Subbed!
Paradox should hire you as a tester, you go so in depth and it's so nice, i will say you could make this game so much more competitive by making it balance to the point that there's no meta anymore, and everything is worth the effort and viable. Yet i can only dream...
LOL, meta will always exist, meta exist in real life, artillery is still meta for past 600 years in warfare, literally one side with artillery always win over the side that does not have it. Its kind of funny how WEAK the artillery is in HoI4 actually, it should be a lot stronger.
@@SMGJohn That's why I said I could only dream, but hoi4 doesn't have to be totally accurate to real life, I would rather have a well balanced and fun game than a 100% historical one that isn't playable or descent at best. Meta will always exist yes, but if it exist yet there's still other viable options to play with then this meta is fine. A meta isn't always attached to unbeatable, and it doesn't have to. Successful Competitive games such as SC2 and CS have been changed and balanced for years for them to be globally balanced, it isn't perfect, but there's always an alternative to the meta that works and can beat it. It's in that sense that hoi4 can improve, by concentrating more on the balance of the game, slowly but surely it'll get better. But I have the impression that Paradox Interactive put very minimal effort in that regard.
@@loxyo3089 how do you balance for example "anti air support" vs "field medics" so that they are both balanced and viable. Answer, you can't. Both give you so diferrent habilities that gauging how "usefull" they are it's idficult if not imposible. How many dudes returning to your manpower give you the same return as one anti Air avoiding you Cas damage? If it's not clear it's like asking how many peaches do you need to make an apple. Any metrics you use to try to gauge such a difference will be bias to something.
@@SMGJohn that is very reductive of history. Artillery is worthless without infantry to protect it. Not only that but Artillery really wasn't any good until the 18th and 19th centuries. Outside of sieges artillery was near worthless and Napolean was one of the first to actually utilize it at all in combat and that was more because he was lucky to be born in an era where cannons were accurate enough to hit targets on the field. The most important part of any military in history has been leadership. Germany's doctrines are what won them so many engagements in WWII. Once Germany could no longer maintain mobility and speed they began to crumble. Tanks, artillery, planes, etc are only as good as they are used. Without proper direction even the best technology becomes worthless. Just look at the allies and their horrible implementation of their tanks and planes. Even when they had superior technology at times they lost because they didn't know how to use them.
@@CasshernSinz1613 I think you misread completely what I wrote, artillery is the superior method on the battlefield, why? Because a big explosion has a much bigger chance of actually k**ling the enemy then machine gun bullets do, just look at the casualty reports of each conflict including WW1 and WW2, look what caused the most casualties, artillery, not just by a little, 70% Even in modern wars, artillery is still the king, soldiers armed with automatic grenade launchers inflict a lot more damage than soldiers armed with heavy machine guns, its just physics, bullets need accuracy, explosives do not. Most tank casualties are also caused by artillery, which is ironic.
It's probably difficult to implement, but turret air attack should be unaffected (or at least way less affected) by a disadvantageous agility difference. I can see why a sluggish fighter with fixed guns struggles against a nimble fighter in a dogfight, but a strategic bomber will practically never fly evasive maneuvers against a light fighter because the "agility" sits in its turrets. You can only "outmaneuver" a turret by entering its blindspot, and that is much more dependent on how you approach the bomber instead of just being agile.
Aaaaaaand Paradox _once again_ proves they do zero QA and don't bother to have anyone actually run the numbers/verify that the math is running the way it was intended 😆 Great job Stealth 👍🏼
Ooo, air defense and air attack are also capped at 100 for planes too! Guess 5x Cannon IIs on heavies are a complete waste. I forgot if strats can get 100+ air defense through armor, but that'd mean they can now drop those for cost reduction.
I could understand it if they made turrets only give defense (you're basically preventing fighters from approaching from certain angles - this was even so IRL) However, to make turrets do totally nothing and be solely a waste of production cost, that's just Stoopid.
It breaks my heart to see how broken these mechanics are; the point of this DLC to me is to be able to make varied and historical designs, yet those designs are useless in these ridiculous metas.
Do you plan to do this for navs as well? saw a nav build on reddit which was just 3 tops and flying boat and then maxed on range and armour so you could bomb pearl from mainland Japan but dunno if that's any good compared to just a small or medium airframe nav
Could you do a small test video in medium airframe tac bombers focused on start bombing ? Maby compacte it to large airframe or why you should or should not do it. It might be a good budget way of start bombing
Do you consider strategic bombing to be worth in the first place? I've never used it, it always seemed like putting the IC into tanks or CAS would be much more worthwhile. Also, you should know that nuking an airfield erases all planes on that airfield, whether they're flying missions or not. Nukes are seriously underrated. Anyway, thanks for the videos. They're great.
In MP, it's worth it for the allies to do. That's only because they don't have the military to D-day earlier, so they have to do something to take some pressure off the Soviets, so they throw bombers at Germany to either tie up his factories by blowing them up, or tie up his air so it's not so bad in the East. It probably isn't worth it if you have an actual frontline with enemy. CAS and tanks would probably be more useful there. If someone goes focused industry instead of Dispersed, though, strats are insane. They shred through those factories really fast and force the player to build AA and spend a long while repairing.
in multiplayer, yes, you can wreck german supply lines during barbarossa and cripple their industry, forcing them to always have fighters at home in singleplayer, spending time making planes other than cas+fighters is almost objectively a waste of time unless you're roleplaying
Im not an expert (Lets say for example that you bomb in singleplayer A huge portions of enemie's factories) the enemy army will still have guns in stockpile so it will be able to fight for some months The results are not immediate but slow i guess
@@SasafrasYT Ah okay. I tend to mod around with my HOI4 by myself. Just added more naval air attack to each torpedo tech as i can not figure out how to buff the module itself.
id sau theu are nerfed due to previous versions onlu heavu fighters could shoot them which no one was building. now maxxed small fighters have enough air atk to kill em for cheap
@@71Cloak could u get a 80% disrupted mission witheuqal the fighters at around 35ic like 1/5th the price? in a real game and not a simulated event germanu might have 10 factories on airfighters and uk/us having 10-20 on strat bombers u will have more fighters than strat
It's better to use one bombing bay instead of putting 3/4 of them if you want to put turret on your bomber for obvious reason of agility is way higher if you want 5 bomb bay then just strap em with armor.
What if you stack air attack, such as 6 dual heavy machine gun turrets with like 1 or 2 strat bomb bays? Will that do better against enemy fighters when strat bombing?
Even if you had 50 air attack your strat bombers would only operate like yiu have 20. Which is a massive ic investment for a middling amount of air attack. They would probably do fine against the ai but that's only because the ai doesn't always upgrade its fighters to reflect research it has done.
Why _DAFUQ_ is there a cap on strategic bombing?? Just adjust the numbers so they can't get too high, or limit the number of slots so you can only drop a certain amount of Boom. But don't put a stealth stat in there that breaks the game for everyone who doesn't follow Stealth 😑
So I think a big reason why air combat in HOI4 will always be a bit awkward is because, as far as I can see, it doesn't take altitude into account? Like, a big reason why German fighters had such problems intercepting Allied bombers was because they couldn't reliably fight at the altitudes the bombers were flying at, which is where heavy fighters would come in, both as interceptors and escorts. Also tactical bombers would have that advantage over CAS. I'm pretty sure HOI3 allowed you to choose at which altitude to fly at, with certain plains having more trouble flying at higher altitudes. If I remember correctly, you could even choose at which angle the bombers should approach their targets. And you weren't restricted to predetermined air zones either, you could set your own zones of operations. Again, HOI4s dumbed down mechanics are hurting it in terms of realism and immersion.
I just finished a historical USA run. So basically you just create cheap strats and versatile tacs ans spam thousands of them. Strats will annihilate Germany and Tacs will give you the Air power you need to boost your army and navy. Britain will have annihilated Axis fighters by the time you swoop in. Mind you, I tested this by boosting Germany and they still got annihiliated in the air by Britain.
I think they should treat nuked cities as if they were occupied by another country. It means that A: there will be more of a reason to research them and B: it would make lategame wars far easier and quicker
By Blood Alone is a half ass DLC. More problems than perks it seems so far. The 100 air wing size is a bummer and game breaker for many people, especially if you arent playing as a major.
I kind of don't like that they're just a flat -12% that can't be mitigated at all. Whichever side gets nukes first will probably be able to 0% the war support of all their enemies before they're able to get them up, which is basically enough to win the game. I think low war support leads to protest events and so does low stability. Those protests are monstrously bad. But I guess it is realistic. Any country without nukes fighting another country with nukes they're willing to use is always going to lose.
Can you please do a video for naval bombers? I wonder if heavy planes are better than small planes. They only manage to kill subs in my game, but no capital ship
I just had a US game where I built Super heavy Naval Bombers, like 90ish IC a piece, 3 torp mounts, armor and all electronics to reduce night penalties, pumped out Abt a thousand of them, about 75% of the Japanese fleet gone in less than a year just by port and nav striking without escorts, kept range in mind but IC for IC I think theyre worth it, i would sink a few capitals and some escorts for the loss of like 3 planes
Looks like there is some kind of bug when there are high numbers of planes in a zone, and they do not interact properly between them, kind of you only lose planes due to accidents, but no plane will shoot down another plane, one of your tests looks like it had that issue.
@@71Cloak So for whom would that be advantageous too have that many planes? And wouldnt that mean going for cheapest plane possible? Should be fixed in my opinion.
@@71Cloak Kk, I did not know the numbers, only that it was a big number of planes, but 5k of them is clearly much more than you had there, so no worries then.
Seems like it's really worth it to build dedicated interceptor fighters right? And heavy fighters are the best at that? just stack a shit ton of air attack? Max agility fighters seem to do relatively poorly against strat bombers
hot take-adding defense on bombers is not a good idea. all that saved IC should be used on eliminating enemy air completely by fighters and then you should get bombers to do their thing. also, their generic defense is already quite high, and you can run escorts if they are countered by 70 attack fighters.
This is probably true. I think maxing out air defense and engine on a strat is roughly a cost increase equivalent to one of those super-pricy heavy fighters that everyone loves.
Air wings are wierd now, they dont reinforce air wings with old aircraft and you basically have to delete the old wing with experience and start over again. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug.
I had that problem with one of my planes. I did a model with 1 HMG and 4x anti-tank cannons to be used as CAS, but it was classified as a heavy fighter due to the first slot being an HMG. When I later made a plane that swapped the HMG for bombs, then it was classified as a CAS and no longer reinforced the old planes as the game saw it as a completely different plane. Your problem could be that. Wish there was a way to manually dictate what role a plane is without changing the first slot. That one doesn't accept any CAS weapon except the bombs, which are pretty bad late game.
Air planes only reinforce into an air wing if they can perform all the same missions as the planes currently in the air wing. So if you have fighter wings and create a new fighter that can also do cas then those fighters won't reinforce the wing.
I am looking for that strategic bomber boosted by a rocket engine into suborbital and skipping on the atmosphere for Germany like they had plans for. :D It then was supposed to glide back home.
There's a Strat bombing cap? Never knew that. Again paradox with its hidden data and rules..
That's literally how games work
@@dimanyak373 thats litteraly not explained
@@subject1479 Are they required to?
@@dimanyak373 yes
@@subject1479 Why should they? Other game developer studios don't have to
Hey mate, just wanna say your videos are super informative, thank you for taking the time to make them!
Thank you man of science for doing the work for us, I would have never have known or guessed there was a cap on Strat bombing. It's hard to find un-obnoxious and informative Hoi4 videos, I look forward to watching more of your stuff
Well that's kinda lame that turrets do nothing. There was a reason countries put them on their bombers, and the only reason they stopped was the speeds and engagement distances become to great for them to matter anymore, but before that they helped greatly with limiting the ability of fighters to attack bombers.
Yeah, they should change it so that air attack from turrets ignores penalties from agility.
@@EgnachHelton or they change it to add air defence, since they are defensive turrets, not for the offensive.
Right? I might just throw a turret on my bombers just so I feel they're realistic.
Lol paradox literally didn't test a single thing in this dlc.
One thing that I tested (and loved) recently is that you can have -80% night penalty AND -50% visibility while strat bombing at night with UK. It's REALLY good to reduce UK investment on escort fighters and you almost don't lose strat bombers (sometimes you can even kill more than lose)
How do you get -90% night penalty?
@@myrten3124 i think the radar techs, and air advisor combined (not including the strategic destruction one because you'll use the -50% vis from OI)
@@myrten3124
First, I mistyped, it was -80%
Chief of Airforce (Charles Portal, -20%), Night Bombing (-50% if left) or Infiltration Bombing (-50% vis, if right), Radio Navigation 2 (-20%), Air To Ground Radar 2 (-40%, you CAN rush with uk)
@@erikrodrigues2733 That's -130%
@@Zorro9129 it's percentages so you can't just add them up. 0.80(-20%)x0.80(-20%)x0.60(-40%)x0.50(-50%)=0.192 which is roughly -80% penalty reduction
A meme that I found is that you can completely get rid of the night penalty with 1941 tech for strat bombers. Air to ground Radar 2 (1941 RADAR tech) gives you -40% and radio navigation gives you -20%. Combine that with the -50% with doctrine and you get rid of the night penalty completely. How much does this affect the damage of strat bombers? From what I've heard, strat bombing at night does less damage, so surely getting rid of the night penalty will make you do more damage over all?
let's hope he makes a vid
BTW you can click on the adjusters of the planes to see the stats without needing to hover over them
Just threw a mod together to test some of this myself.
Firstly, that AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING define isn't a cap on strat bombing. In fact when i changed it to 10 or even to 1 the strat bombers still did the exact same amount of damage as when AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING was at the default of 100. AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING doesn't do anything for strategic bombing.
Secondly, i suspect that the real reason why the 132 bomber didn't do all that much more damage than the 96 one was because even with instant construction germany still couldn't repair fast enough to keep up. Construction lines for repairing seems to only be able to repair 1 building at a time even if 5 are destroyed if they all are on the same construction line.
Which means that if the strat bombers destroy more than one of the same building per day then they are eventually going to run out of buildings to destroy even though instant construction is active.
Also it seems like every air wing can only target a single building type at a time which meant that even though my modded 12k strat bombing planes only needed to sneeze in the general direction of germany to wipe all civs in a state that sneeze didnt do a single point of damage to the railroads, infrastructure and other buildings in the same state let alone the civs and other buildings in other states.
Each tick was 2-3 buildings worth of damage or 6-9 a day. In an air region that had at least 5 civs per region (I added more to make sure they didn't run out of buildings).
When i was watching it I only ever saw 5 or maybe 6 lines of repair and they were getting fulled repaired every day and replaced by different stats getting bombed.
I don't know, it seems like the damage is getting capped. Might just be by the number of buildings in each province though because each province had on average 5 civs or mils.
@@71Cloak Are you sure that they were getting fully repaired before being bombed again?
Personally when i was testing it i did it by fully bombing out germany, then stopping my strats from bombing anymore, tagging over to germany, turning on ic and then watching the construction queue quite clearly only repair one civ per day per line.
I even modded civs to construct over a thousand times faster and still only one building per day per line was being repaired.
@@Roatze I really don't believe the buildings were getting completely bombed out. I think the only difference in bombing figures for the 2 regions is density related. I have seen ic get overwhelmed before and that didn't look like it.
@@71Cloak a method to verify this is to use just less bombers
As far as I can find, you're the FIRST guy to try to explain the new air meta.
And as much as I love the guy, you're a lot easier to follow than Feedback.
Subbed!
feedback hasnt said one correct thing ever
Paradox should hire you as a tester, you go so in depth and it's so nice, i will say you could make this game so much more competitive by making it balance to the point that there's no meta anymore, and everything is worth the effort and viable. Yet i can only dream...
LOL, meta will always exist, meta exist in real life, artillery is still meta for past 600 years in warfare, literally one side with artillery always win over the side that does not have it.
Its kind of funny how WEAK the artillery is in HoI4 actually, it should be a lot stronger.
@@SMGJohn That's why I said I could only dream, but hoi4 doesn't have to be totally accurate to real life, I would rather have a well balanced and fun game than a 100% historical one that isn't playable or descent at best. Meta will always exist yes, but if it exist yet there's still other viable options to play with then this meta is fine. A meta isn't always attached to unbeatable, and it doesn't have to. Successful Competitive games such as SC2 and CS have been changed and balanced for years for them to be globally balanced, it isn't perfect, but there's always an alternative to the meta that works and can beat it. It's in that sense that hoi4 can improve, by concentrating more on the balance of the game, slowly but surely it'll get better. But I have the impression that Paradox Interactive put very minimal effort in that regard.
@@loxyo3089 how do you balance for example "anti air support" vs "field medics" so that they are both balanced and viable.
Answer, you can't.
Both give you so diferrent habilities that gauging how "usefull" they are it's idficult if not imposible.
How many dudes returning to your manpower give you the same return as one anti Air avoiding you Cas damage?
If it's not clear it's like asking how many peaches do you need to make an apple.
Any metrics you use to try to gauge such a difference will be bias to something.
@@SMGJohn that is very reductive of history. Artillery is worthless without infantry to protect it. Not only that but Artillery really wasn't any good until the 18th and 19th centuries. Outside of sieges artillery was near worthless and Napolean was one of the first to actually utilize it at all in combat and that was more because he was lucky to be born in an era where cannons were accurate enough to hit targets on the field.
The most important part of any military in history has been leadership. Germany's doctrines are what won them so many engagements in WWII. Once Germany could no longer maintain mobility and speed they began to crumble.
Tanks, artillery, planes, etc are only as good as they are used. Without proper direction even the best technology becomes worthless. Just look at the allies and their horrible implementation of their tanks and planes. Even when they had superior technology at times they lost because they didn't know how to use them.
@@CasshernSinz1613
I think you misread completely what I wrote, artillery is the superior method on the battlefield, why? Because a big explosion has a much bigger chance of actually k**ling the enemy then machine gun bullets do, just look at the casualty reports of each conflict including WW1 and WW2, look what caused the most casualties, artillery, not just by a little, 70%
Even in modern wars, artillery is still the king, soldiers armed with automatic grenade launchers inflict a lot more damage than soldiers armed with heavy machine guns, its just physics, bullets need accuracy, explosives do not.
Most tank casualties are also caused by artillery, which is ironic.
It's probably difficult to implement, but turret air attack should be unaffected (or at least way less affected) by a disadvantageous agility difference. I can see why a sluggish fighter with fixed guns struggles against a nimble fighter in a dogfight, but a strategic bomber will practically never fly evasive maneuvers against a light fighter because the "agility" sits in its turrets. You can only "outmaneuver" a turret by entering its blindspot, and that is much more dependent on how you approach the bomber instead of just being agile.
Aaaaaaand Paradox _once again_ proves they do zero QA and don't bother to have anyone actually run the numbers/verify that the math is running the way it was intended 😆
Great job Stealth 👍🏼
For me the greatest use for strategic bombers is diverting enemy fighters from other places. The damage itself Is not really as important
Ooo, air defense and air attack are also capped at 100 for planes too! Guess 5x Cannon IIs on heavies are a complete waste. I forgot if strats can get 100+ air defense through armor, but that'd mean they can now drop those for cost reduction.
I could understand it if they made turrets only give defense
(you're basically preventing fighters from approaching from certain angles - this was even so IRL)
However, to make turrets do totally nothing and be solely a waste of production cost, that's just Stoopid.
Hey, cloak, are you able to recreate the bug that ESG showcased where fighters stop trading if you have more than 12000 fighters on each side?
It happens at a lot lower than 12k. 5k vs 5k it can happen.
Wait wut 👀
It breaks my heart to see how broken these mechanics are; the point of this DLC to me is to be able to make varied and historical designs, yet those designs are useless in these ridiculous metas.
Do you plan to do this for navs as well? saw a nav build on reddit which was just 3 tops and flying boat and then maxed on range and armour so you could bomb pearl from mainland Japan but dunno if that's any good compared to just a small or medium airframe nav
Could you do a small test video in medium airframe tac bombers focused on start bombing ? Maby compacte it to large airframe or why you should or should not do it. It might be a good budget way of start bombing
Do you consider strategic bombing to be worth in the first place? I've never used it, it always seemed like putting the IC into tanks or CAS would be much more worthwhile. Also, you should know that nuking an airfield erases all planes on that airfield, whether they're flying missions or not. Nukes are seriously underrated. Anyway, thanks for the videos. They're great.
In MP, it's worth it for the allies to do. That's only because they don't have the military to D-day earlier, so they have to do something to take some pressure off the Soviets, so they throw bombers at Germany to either tie up his factories by blowing them up, or tie up his air so it's not so bad in the East.
It probably isn't worth it if you have an actual frontline with enemy. CAS and tanks would probably be more useful there. If someone goes focused industry instead of Dispersed, though, strats are insane. They shred through those factories really fast and force the player to build AA and spend a long while repairing.
in multiplayer, yes, you can wreck german supply lines during barbarossa and cripple their industry, forcing them to always have fighters at home
in singleplayer, spending time making planes other than cas+fighters is almost objectively a waste of time unless you're roleplaying
Im not an expert
(Lets say for example that you bomb in singleplayer
A huge portions of enemie's factories)
the enemy army will still have guns in stockpile so it will be able to fight for some months
The results are not immediate but slow i guess
now that they fixed naval bombing show us the best naval bombers. Are medium hull naval bombers worth it for the massive range?
What actually was wrong with naval bombers? I didn´t play the game yet.
Or do you mean the CV bug he mentioned before?
@@xxxm981 just the CV bug, i dont think there was anything else wrong to my knowledge
@@SasafrasYT Ah okay. I tend to mod around with my HOI4 by myself.
Just added more naval air attack to each torpedo tech as i can not figure out how to buff the module itself.
Why tf is there a 100 cap if they let me sink in more and more points and IC into making some amazing strat bomber
Where you been?!
id sau theu are nerfed due to previous versions onlu heavu fighters could shoot them which no one was building. now maxxed small fighters have enough air atk to kill em for cheap
"Cheap". The fighter I used had more air attack and cost more than a heavy fighter from pre BBA.
@@71Cloak could u get a 80% disrupted mission witheuqal the fighters at around 35ic like 1/5th the price?
in a real game and not a simulated event germanu might have 10 factories on airfighters and uk/us having 10-20 on strat bombers u will have more fighters than strat
It's better to use one bombing bay instead of putting 3/4 of them if you want to put turret on your bomber for obvious reason of agility is way higher if you want 5 bomb bay then just strap em with armor.
Add one guided anti-ship missile, and you can add as much armor as you want. Not penalty for weight.
maybe the cap happens before some of the buffs? or maybe it's a tapering cap instead of a hard cap, like x^0.1 or something.
Could night bombing be responsible for the difference in your SD test? Maybe the cap gets applied after the debuff?
What if you stack air attack, such as 6 dual heavy machine gun turrets with like 1 or 2 strat bomb bays? Will that do better against enemy fighters when strat bombing?
Even if you had 50 air attack your strat bombers would only operate like yiu have 20. Which is a massive ic investment for a middling amount of air attack. They would probably do fine against the ai but that's only because the ai doesn't always upgrade its fighters to reflect research it has done.
...looks like the NEW kind of "transport" plane (in IC) are the STRAT Bombers now...VERY EXPENSIVE!!!
Hi can you please check if flying fortress or High altitude bombing gives defense to TAC or Strat bombers?
Wonder if it’s gonna stay or be removed that v1 up to v3 could do nukes extra broken late game with the v3 missile range
I am not using that kind of planes yet, but I do like your videos xD
Not related to the topic but how many air superiority debuff can stack on ground forces at most?
What about night bombing and new modules that reduce the penalty?
Why _DAFUQ_ is there a cap on strategic bombing??
Just adjust the numbers so they can't get too high, or limit the number of slots so you can only drop a certain amount of Boom.
But don't put a stealth stat in there that breaks the game for everyone who doesn't follow Stealth 😑
Nice, was the aircraft carrier's fixed in the last patch?
not the figherts
W cloak + first
How should we operate under the new peace deal system 🤔🤔
So I think a big reason why air combat in HOI4 will always be a bit awkward is because, as far as I can see, it doesn't take altitude into account?
Like, a big reason why German fighters had such problems intercepting Allied bombers was because they couldn't reliably fight at the altitudes the bombers were flying at, which is where heavy fighters would come in, both as interceptors and escorts. Also tactical bombers would have that advantage over CAS.
I'm pretty sure HOI3 allowed you to choose at which altitude to fly at, with certain plains having more trouble flying at higher altitudes. If I remember correctly, you could even choose at which angle the bombers should approach their targets.
And you weren't restricted to predetermined air zones either, you could set your own zones of operations.
Again, HOI4s dumbed down mechanics are hurting it in terms of realism and immersion.
Naval bombers have some weird stuff going on too. you put torpedos on and the naval attack remains the same and does nothing against ships.
That depends on the mission and the primary weapon you give them.
Or at least, that's how it should be....
"They've got good air attack"
The air attack : 44
Isn't the standard for fighter I's 56?
I just finished a historical USA run. So basically you just create cheap strats and versatile tacs ans spam thousands of them. Strats will annihilate Germany and Tacs will give you the Air power you need to boost your army and navy. Britain will have annihilated Axis fighters by the time you swoop in. Mind you, I tested this by boosting Germany and they still got annihiliated in the air by Britain.
As a American main can someone please explain what expensive design means?
LOL you can only have 250 mills while Germany and USSR can easily push 350 - 400 mills late game.
7:14 "Not that they have the range to reach anything anyways". Wdym, they reach half the planet?
He wasn't talking about the ICBMs, he was talking about tier 2s which you get at the same time as nukes.
Just use fighters to cover the valuable planes
W Cloak + 9th
So I can’t maxout stratbomb and send enemy into stone age? Awwwww….that’s lame
I still prefer the old way nukes worked back when we had national unity. Nuking dropped unity which directly lowered surrender limits.
180 IC or 120 IC... for one single plane... wow...
hahaha 160 strat bombers go brrrrrrrrrrrr anyways
I think they should treat nuked cities as if they were occupied by another country. It means that A: there will be more of a reason to research them and B: it would make lategame wars far easier and quicker
By Blood Alone is a half ass DLC. More problems than perks it seems so far. The 100 air wing size is a bummer and game breaker for many people, especially if you arent playing as a major.
The BBA air content has been really helpful, thanks for spending time to help all of us out.
Very cool that Nukes have that added effect now. Also makes somewhat sense that your war support gets nuked.
Just sucks when you're in MP and you get your base war support nuked down to 0 and can't do anything.
@@TrevorSmithy MP you should win before nukes are made..... tf
don't get nuked.
@@TrevorSmithy Yeah but means you have to win before nukes come online.
I kind of don't like that they're just a flat -12% that can't be mitigated at all. Whichever side gets nukes first will probably be able to 0% the war support of all their enemies before they're able to get them up, which is basically enough to win the game. I think low war support leads to protest events and so does low stability. Those protests are monstrously bad. But I guess it is realistic. Any country without nukes fighting another country with nukes they're willing to use is always going to lose.
Can you please do a video for naval bombers? I wonder if heavy planes are better than small planes. They only manage to kill subs in my game, but no capital ship
I just had a US game where I built Super heavy Naval Bombers, like 90ish IC a piece, 3 torp mounts, armor and all electronics to reduce night penalties, pumped out Abt a thousand of them, about 75% of the Japanese fleet gone in less than a year just by port and nav striking without escorts, kept range in mind but IC for IC I think theyre worth it, i would sink a few capitals and some escorts for the loss of like 3 planes
Do you think that the Transport planes IC was a mistake like someone messed up and missed a 0 or something lol
No they're not a mistake.
@@71Cloak Thats amazing lol. Just a few factories and you have all the supply youll need everywhere I suppose then
@@xdeepxfreezex2621 Well, they did nerf supply vs NSB.
Looks like there is some kind of bug when there are high numbers of planes in a zone, and they do not interact properly between them, kind of you only lose planes due to accidents, but no plane will shoot down another plane, one of your tests looks like it had that issue.
No not in anything I've recorded. You need about 5k+ per side for that to happen.
@@71Cloak So for whom would that be advantageous too have that many planes? And wouldnt that mean going for cheapest plane possible? Should be fixed in my opinion.
@@71Cloak Kk, I did not know the numbers, only that it was a big number of planes, but 5k of them is clearly much more than you had there, so no worries then.
:) always look forward to every video you make , you deserve way more subs then you got.
Seems like it's really worth it to build dedicated interceptor fighters right? And heavy fighters are the best at that? just stack a shit ton of air attack?
Max agility fighters seem to do relatively poorly against strat bombers
Is the strategic bombing value for rockets fixed or is it still bugged?
yea rockets are useless
hot take-adding defense on bombers is not a good idea. all that saved IC should be used on eliminating enemy air completely by fighters and then you should get bombers to do their thing. also, their generic defense is already quite high, and you can run escorts if they are countered by 70 attack fighters.
This is probably true. I think maxing out air defense and engine on a strat is roughly a cost increase equivalent to one of those super-pricy heavy fighters that everyone loves.
@@NicholasW943 which are dogshit as well compared to 1940 2x cannon+2 4x heavy machineguns, range upgrades and defense upgrades.
So hypothetically speaking anyone who gets 1946 rocket tech with nukes just instawin?
Air wings are wierd now, they dont reinforce air wings with old aircraft and you basically have to delete the old wing with experience and start over again. Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug.
I had that problem with one of my planes. I did a model with 1 HMG and 4x anti-tank cannons to be used as CAS, but it was classified as a heavy fighter due to the first slot being an HMG. When I later made a plane that swapped the HMG for bombs, then it was classified as a CAS and no longer reinforced the old planes as the game saw it as a completely different plane.
Your problem could be that. Wish there was a way to manually dictate what role a plane is without changing the first slot. That one doesn't accept any CAS weapon except the bombs, which are pretty bad late game.
Air planes only reinforce into an air wing if they can perform all the same missions as the planes currently in the air wing. So if you have fighter wings and create a new fighter that can also do cas then those fighters won't reinforce the wing.
how do you add planes from the console what is the command in bba for large medium and small ? can anyone help?
What do you mean? Nukes always had the effect of lowering war support when hitting Victory Points?
Yes but it was baked into the bombing modifier I think.
@@ruukinen incorrect, it targeted the base
Was waiting for this one!
I am looking for that strategic bomber boosted by a rocket engine into suborbital and skipping on the atmosphere for Germany like they had plans for. :D It then was supposed to glide back home.
Sadly, those rocket engines can only be used on small planes.
It would be cool if TNO Redux let you build those. In Millennium Dawn the U.S. can get global coverage with transport planes.
Anything you test, you just prove pretty much nothing works like they should and the incompetance of (AAA) paradox. Sad really