Testing The Best Defense Against Enemy Bombing - Hoi4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2022
- Should you use Fighters, Heavy Fighters or State AA as your primary defense against strategic bombing and logistics strikes? Testing it out against Close Air Support (cas), Tactical Bombers (tacs) and Strategic Bombers (strats). Obviously mixing one of fighters and heavy fighters with aa is going to give the best result overall, but which one is doing the heavy lifting in that arrangement.
Twitch.tv/71cloak - Ігри
one thing to note , AA does not use fuel¬ and you can use "both"
they also do not require strategic resource or mil IC to build, just time and civ IC
But you can’t move them. So if the enemy changes where they bomb you have to build all new AA, versus just changing where your planes are located. This really means you will have to build AA everywhere in enemy range, making the cost much higher overall.
@@alatamore the trick is to build AA everywhere, concentrating on where most of your IC is, then moving your planes to where they bomb. It makes for much less over IC used esp when you need it to produce more equipment
@@skynet159632 I still think it’s an overall loss. You are using your Civs to set up for an attrition war, like building forts. This stops the civs from building more civs, or mils, or other essential things and this is shorting your economy. I guess if your plan is to have a war of attrition it does work, as the math is better. However I’d rather plan and build to go after a fast war, win or lose. Statically sitting there getting bombed seems like a bad plan, even if you create a good defense for it.
The downside of state AA is, that the bombers can bomb it and can do so before they get all shot down.
sadly state AA doesnt target logistics bombing. one of the many reasons why it's so broken
I imagine state AA as some static, large caliber guns that are meant to shoot several kilometers into the sky to defend cities or important locations against strategic bombers. The classic image of the sky filled with explosions. But they would be too slow to target smaller planes flying at low altitude that are striking at roads and railways, you'd need a different gun for that.
State AA Is large anti air towers ment to protect a single area whilst logistics bombing is destroying rail and roads out in the middle of no where it's a immersion choice
@@FLUX.2226 Exactly, State AA is like those huge emplacements of Long 88cm Flak guns the germans first used as anti-air before using it as anti-tank. That's why they don't affect CAS missions either.
@@FLUX.2226 the german flak towers had 20mm autocannons as well (4-8 pieces in double or quadruple setup, so 8-24 guns total). they just gut dismounted later in the war, when strategic bombers flew higher and higher.
@@dragosdragon7515 oh yeah.... cause there isn't logistics infrastructure in cities guarded by AA.
And they never guarded bridges, damns or rail ways stations with AA.
Now let's see Paul Allen's best defense against enemy bombing
So funny plz help.
Rocket interceptors, very nice.
Look at that jet fighter wing, the tasteful air superiority of it
Nice video! Would have been nice to have a region without defenses(as a control variable), so we know how much damage is being prevented, % wise. Although its not necesary to find out which type of air defense is better
This could use some kind of table at the end. I guess the conclusion is to go with regular Fighters, because they're good enough as defence and are better against enemy Fighters, then maybe shore up some regions with a few State AA.
That was what I think the video shows too. Which is sad, because *as a game*, there should never be a single optimal strategy. Heavy fighters and should have a use.
IRL, effective night fighters were heavy fighters, so they could carry radar. So giving light fighters an enormous malus at night, with no or only a small malus at night for heavy fighters could fix that.
@@RaedwaldBretwalda Yes, right now compared to tanks and land divisions, aircraft needs a serious rework. There shouldn't be a one size fits all solution, and heavy fighters need to have more utility. Hopefully with the Italy rework.
That’s my conclusion. Fighters are best against other fighters and CAS. They are not as good but good enough against TAC and Strat strikes to warrant saving the research, production and upgrades of a separate type.
@@ListogreOfficial after the ship and the tank dlc, probably next dlc will see plane designer
heavy fighters have one big advantage. range. if you're planning on having fights in big regions, like the west of the soviet union, or over seas, fighters might be useless, particularly early on. in western europe, fighters would be the way to go.
I don't think AA is bugged. I'm pretty sure Paradox likes the idea that AA is only there to shoot down strats and lessen damage, but not participate in attacking planes bombing railways in the middle of nowhere or shooting troops on a shifting frontline. Maybe they should make them deal a bit of damage to CAS to show that they are logi striking more important things like supply hubs, which I would imagine AA would be placed at.
I love the videos, Id like if you could add a quick summary of conclusions at the end though. You go 90 mph through tons of ingame jargon and numbers and sometimes its hard to determine why exactly or what exactly.
I wanted to comment something similar, but I probably couldn't word it better.
These quick videos are awesome.
Conclusion?
Since you used them for this test, are fighters with max engines the best variant for air superiority? I always went with max engines + max weapons.
Engines are the most important after that you might want range you might want weapons but you will always go for the engines.
Great video as usual
I wonder if I should mix regular fighters with the heavy fighters on defense because the regular fighters have an advantage over the heavy fighters who will escort the strat bombers🤔
Very interesting and quick video. Nice work
0:40 thank you for listing the Ic differences.
Not so much a short video idea, but I really want someone to xplain how manpower really works when taken outside of just the number at the top of the screen. Like, if you annex a country you have cores on, what happens to the manpower in they're divisions, or in training. When you build divisions does the manpower come evenly from states? When you disband does it return evenly? Stuff like that
Paradox has tried to limit state the population to manpower connection to prevent war crime larping.
So if you make or delete units your states don't actually lose or gain any manpower. Same with nukes or strat bombing, you don't lose state manpower.
As for how the manpower you get from conquered land gets affected if the country you took over has suffered losses works, that one I don't know.
@@firemochimc War Crime Larping??? I believe you, but, my good god what a strange online community these games have
@@santoast24 There was a mod few years back, that added concetration camps and ability to war crime on state population, but it was banned from steam with lightining speed and never appeard again (at least officialy)
@@santoast24 Yeah, that's also why there's no Ost Plan or anything with camps in the game.
The worst thing they've added is setting up collaborator puppets in the Benelux, Ostland, Ukraine and Norway via the focus.
@@ppdnokis What a shame.
Thanks for this, It's helping me catch up on what I never knew 700 Hrs in.
Problem is taking the time to research heavy fighters means you'll be lagging behind in other parts of your research that would probably bring more benefits
They are cool
By experience, try doing the same tests with maxed out weapons on Heavy Fighters and maxed Agility on Fighters, CAS, TACs and STRATS. You'll notice the Heavy Fighters suddenly start shooting down way more planes, even against CAS.
question: in this case does using air superiority mission vs intercept make any difference?
Awesome vid but I always wonder how effective rocket interceptors are. any chance you could make a video on that please
yeah, an addendum of rocket interceptors vs jets would be nice.
2:00 CAS does not engage with state AA; They are not coded to engage with it outside of combat. In ground combat, while they're using ground attack, State AA aids the unit it is attached to. In logi strike, there is no combat, it simply 'happens'. Likely an oversight, but the code hookups aren't there. Attach them to a specific ground unit, force them into a battle with another sitting on AA. You will get results. But otherwise, AA is not a viable defense for CAS doing logi.
Incidentally, Unit AA, that is any unit with air attack, will engage as you know. I question how effective it is against CAS and how it stacks with State AA.
It isn't an oversight imo. Logistics bombing would essentially come down to destroying supplies on the move in trucks or trains, where there isn't stationary state AA since that would be focused on protecting cities and industrial area's. The sam goes for CAS, they focus on attacking frontlines, where again most likely there wouldn't be any stationary AA in range, except if the fighting happens very close by.
@@MDP1702 Yes and no; Everyone brings up AA train cars or SPAA for supply trucks, but the reality is that most major and backline supply routes followed an AA corridor. Think about it; Why would you go down the road with no AA, when you could take a different fork and follow the route near the tank plant that has an AA bunker? And if you have a trainline that is delivering iron and chromium to that same tank plant AND picking up tanks to drop off at another stop, why wouldn't you build AA emplacements along that path?
Everyone thinks Battle of Britain when they think AA defenses; That was abnormal. Most bombing runs where NOT done on civilian targets because there was no value in them. Most of it was done on logistics and munitions production. Resultantly, there's more AA bunkers along rail than in cities in Europe.
That said, if we used that logic, then it would make even less sense why state AA protects ground units when they're engaged at a front line.
@@gigaus0 *And if you have a trainline that is delivering iron and chromium to that same tank plant AND picking up tanks to drop off at another stop, why wouldn't you build AA emplacements along that path?*
This is already more about internal infrastructure ie. factories and raw supplies. We are talking about frontline/troop supply, which is diffent. You certainly wouldn't just be building static AA emplacements there, it would be a lot more expensive and demand a lot more manpower. Rather to defend that part against supply attacks from the air with your own airforce and mobile AA, and more the airforce than the AA honestly. This is one of the problems the allies faced early on against Germany, not having really air defence and German airforces decimating troop movements and supplies on the ground. Hell this is partially why the Belgian army eventually surrendered instead of retreating, they were out of supply and didn't have air cover being decimated when they tried to move during the day.
*Most bombing runs where NOT done on civilian targets because there was no value in them.*
it depends on what phase we are talking about, initially yes it was mostly focused on military installations, but after a while this shifted, which was stupid. Also civilian targets have a value if you hope to force the enemy into making a peace by making the war too costly in lives/security. Also it wasn't just that civilians were necessarily the main target, also industry nearby could be a target or supply depots in a city/town.
*Most of it was done on logistics and munitions production.*
I don't remember this being the case for the battle of britain. it mostly was about taking out the RAF and disrupt shipping, supply depots were a tertiary objective and honestly I am not talking about static supply depots, since yes they could have AA, I am talking about supply to frontline that isn't necessarily static and thus not getting much if any use for static AA emplacements.
*That said, if we used that logic, then it would make even less sense why state AA protects ground units when they're engaged at a front line.*
I agree, it should be AA within a unit itself with state AA only being again strategic bombarding. And actually that seems to be the case. In the wiki it says that state AA protect against strategic, port and air supply missions. So if state AA helps units on the frontline, it likely wasn't intended.
Makes sense about AA vs CAS. You need to equip the units with AA guns.
You might want to try with strat bombers 2 that is when their air defense really is ramps up so small fighters will have a harder time shooting them down due not enough attack. They will disrupt but the bombers will make it home.
All testing was done at the 1940 tech level.
@@71Cloak What about a test with escorts + strat bombers, against defenders? That would be interesting.
Can we get a video on specific building type bombing VS universal regional bombing?
Doesn't radar affect the effectiveness of ground-based AA? Also, I'm curious about rocket interceptors, how good are they against bombers?
Yes, Radar does affect state AA (though I don't know if its the region as a whole or merely the province due to the tooltip being ????? tier)
Rocket interceptors are absolutely WORTHLESS unless you get the "Rocket Interceptor III" simply due to the absolutely horrid range on them, even on an extremely small air-zone like Benelux they're just B A D.
However, if you by some miracle, or by abusing Research bonuses and tech cycling get Rocket Interceptor III's up and running, and upgrade their range and to max, and are fighting on a relatively small air zone, they absolutely decimate everything and anything trying to bomb you, making them, together with radar (that you should have already by that point in game to boost their detection). Making them able to hard counter even Strat-III's with few additional upgrades to their stats.
or, a TLDR is that they're definitely not worth the time, research, IC, resources, et cetra, save for the memes and the fact they can decimate Strat-III's that are real damn hard to counter with them. though at the same time, Fighter-III is "good enough" anyways.
Now, I am going off on the old info, but as far as I know this should still be the same in current patch.
@@melfice999 IIRC radar also affects the effectiveness of your planes
Radar affect ground base AA but also air combat (so it helps fighters and heavy fighters as well) it wasnt used so it would be fair but if u can u should build radar it helps quite a bit
please help me understand what is happening with the ground support mission and cas. should I be splitting my groups?
Hey, great Video. Results are what I expected. Regarding the "Logistical Strike". As far as I understood that supply is transported by truck and train. The more supply, the more you can strike.
However, Paris is your main Supply Hub. That means all the supply that is needed in the netherlands and in the south of france is transported through the northn france region and can get attacked, if true you might want to check the numbers again if the AA is in southern france to avoid that or use a different city as main supply hub.
As GB I can logistic strike the shit out of berlin during barbarossa and the german units on the front will just attrition to hell. I always expected it to work like this and I'm 100% I did it like this. TacBombers over berlin. I will test it later.
I'm wrong. Supply Can get striked where it is "used" by troops. So totally empty germany with troops only on the border of fra and I make NO damage by Logistics Strike over Berlin. I assume the damage I made in my games was directly on the units within the eastern germany air zone.
Can you make a comparison between fighters with just engines and the same fighters with engines and weapons upgraded?
Alright just so I am tracking.
Having AA and fighters guarding against bombers is as effective as having heavy fighters?
Seems like aa and regular fighters would be the best combo. Otherwise it just depends if you can spare the mils or civs.
good data. thank you.
How do the jets and rocket aircraft perform in comparison?
Did you account for the infrastructure modifier when you calculated the cost of 14AA built in the region? Your AA build to equivalent fighter seems a bit off
No I did forget about that. The cost for aa is based on building in 4 air regions because you can't move them like fighters.
When I play as Germany (99% of the time lmao because I feel like I learn everytime something new) and have to fight Britain and the RAF, I like to put at least one AA on every state, have 3 mils on fighter production from the start and increasing it whenever I feel like, as well as put AA support companies in my main templates (7-2, 14-4, tank)
just produce enough guns artillery etc. and keep the rest of them building planes.when you are at war you cant import rubber so plane production keeps down
What was the name of colored air buttons mod? Anyone knows?
IIRC the reason why heavy fighters are better vs. bombers is because heavy fighters are more likely to actually down an opponent rather than just stop it from bombing.
Personally I make a ton of cas, which usually gives me air superiority against ai. I also make fighters, but mainly for interception (also some air superioriy). Would in my case it be better to go for heavies instead? Another benefit might be the extra range, which allows the use of more airports.
My sense is that heavy fighters are super edge case. They are mostly useful in very large air zones, like say, africa, where you just don't have the range early on to operate fighters, and you may not want to use a lot of high cost ground units due to the joys of desert and jungle attrition.
As soon as fighters have the range, they take over. Not only do they do some thing heavy fighters are bad at, but it simplifies your production lines significantly just not to bother with heavy fighters, and it saves you a bunch of air experience to not have to improve two different fighter types.
@@timmietimmins3780 Have you watched the video and read what I use my fighters for?
@@Vincrand Yes.
First, air superiority. That's not a thing. For cost, fighters and heavy fighters have near identical superiority per cost. I think that heavy fighters are about 24 cost per point, and regular fighters are 26, at tech 2. So it's within 8%. I would not let myself spend the research, air experience, and production efficiency setting something up for 8% benefit to power.
As for ability to cram people on airbases, that is probaly just WHO I play, but I have never had it be even a remote issue. I mostly play minors, which means I don't really have the critical mass of air to overwhelm my airbases.
MAYBE it's an issue in single player germany, but I doubt it. My sense is that 25k IC per airbase is good enough for basically any single player situation.
And the point of the video was rather that "while heavy fighters can intercept, they don't seem to have a significant advantage in any aspect of interception".
Did you watch the video?
No, heavy fighters do not make sense for your style.
Heavy fighters really are ONLY good against Strat Bombers, or in not-Europe where the airzones are too big. (but even then you can just put more planes up to compensate)
@@MrNicoJac So yiou say that they ar enot good for my style, but only good for my style. Clear.
Thanks
Best argument to build fighters vs anything else is: green air(helps in combat), counter cas and bombers(bombers don t take off above a precentage of green air)
Reliability is a factor in this
Logi strikes are bugged. AA doesn't do anything against them as I think they coded it in to have fighters and cas not get hit by AA. Logi strikes in general are border line broken. AA is also nice though since it adds bonuses to air superiority in the region.
So, I'm 4 months late, but logistics strikes IS bugged. There is a dev dairy on the upcoming By Blood Alone DLC which mentions armored trains will have working AA capability now.
Bombers in the test have red air mission efficiency and the fighters also have red air efficiency, maybe the lack of range to cover the full area that they are in. This could be skewwing with test results.
No they don't. I just paused at night each time so your see the night penalty. All bombers had full mission efficiency during day.
@71cloak If you have cas or tactical bombers on logistic strike mission they can't be shot down by anti-air.
This is a not a bug, paradox have scripted it that way.
Why? Don't ask me, I don't know why it is the case.
BUT!! If you strategic bomb enemy railways (it targets railways, supply trains, railway guns and everything else what logistic strike would target) with your tactical bombers the anti-air can shoot down the bombers but if you only activate logistic bombing no anti-air can shot you down, not even units with anti-air standing on the rails that you bomb.
This is why logistic bombing is baned in many multiplayer games because it's overpowerd and completle broken.
What's your Radar tech? Higher levels improve AA efficiency.
1942.
I mean if you used the XP from the fighters to give the heavy fighters better engines you might get the best of both.
Germany can get Fritz Todt, and a few other bonuses for AA something like +65% construction to AA
You can get basically the same efficiency boosts for everything non-naval with techs though
AA building is meant to reduce damage to buildings, unit AA reduces damage to units. The advantage of AA building is that it doesn't use manpower. Heavy fighter is for further range, if you don't need the range then don't spend extra for it.
Aa doesn't stack with disperseds bonus though so other than shot down it does do much. Max aa provides 60% reduction while dispersed gives 55%.
I don't believe either were used in this video.
Can you make a video about the best upgrade for fighter ? Usually, in MP games, people upgrade max engine and max range. Weapons is only upgraded for fighter 3 because they get more than 100 agility with doctrine and 5 engine which is overkill. Idk if this is actually the best way to upgrade fighters or if people just copy others without any understanding of the game.
I have done all the tests on this topic and its quite easy. Range and engine is the most important stat which one to prioritize is hard to say but 5 range gives you flexibility and can in some cases give better trades than 5 engine but esencialy get both! Gun 5 is only needed if you are planning on fighting a lot of tac bombers and strat bombers gun 5 is equal vs non gun 5 planes
@@alexanderholt4679 Is it true that fighter 3 have too much agility to the point that gun 2 increases its performance against fighters ?
@@mimile4462 no you can never have too much agility. Agility is a bonus to stats which caps when you have 2/3 more agility than your enemy so vs strat bombers engine on fighter 3 would not make a difference but against normal fighters it will
@@mimile4462 well i guess 1000 would be too much but you get the point 😂😅
@@alexanderholt4679 ok thx
Not sure if I missed it, but what level was your AA research at?
1940 with max radar tech. A pretty favourable situation for them all things considered.
@@71Cloak Geez, they really do need to add some sort of doctrine or something that buffs anti-air in general, but debuffs your airforce.
AA is the best defence against strat bombers because it requires no manpower, no fuel, you cant loss them (fully) , they get benefits from radar/intel/AA upgrades (which you should be doing anyways) and they take up to airfield real estate.
Sometimes I use all three to protect my really important regions.
Can you place AA in an airzone and then not place it on the front line and will it still shoot down planes? Like just have random AA only divisions around your country?
No aa in divisions only interacts with cas trying to bomb it during a battle and nothing else.
@@71Cloak Alright thank you, been trying to fight soviets and Germans together as poland so the AA is the only way to go gotta make most use of it
Suggestion: mot AA vs flak tanks in tank divisions
The only difference will be armor.
So if you have a lot of IC to spare, and are against the AI where you might not get pierced, you can go for SPAA.
In MP, you'll just be wasting resources.
And in SP, you'll also be wasting resources due to opportunity cost; SPAA is superior, but motorized AA is _sufficient_ so your return on investment will be marginal, meaning it's better to put your extra IC and XP into something else :)
I saw many people saying that heavy fighters are great to intercept and light fighters for superiority
well the video show that hv. fighters are indeed better than lt.fighters at gunning down other planes, but the difference isn't that big and they sometimes take more casualties compared to lt.fighters
@@ernstschmidt4725 I 99% of the time, only produce Heavis, longer range, 1.25 air sup., etc..
What about rocket interceptors? I always thought they are the end game of dealing with bombers
The issue with rocket interceptors in most cases that if you need them, you either have plenty of normal planes already so you can put those on intercept duty, or you're so far up shit creek that no amount of planes will really turn the tide.
Furthermore it's an extra tree (technically) that you need to go down, and unless you have 5 research trees AND are planning to go long into a war, going down rocketry is only as useful as far as getting rocket arty. (even then its usefulness is very situational). It's a lot of extra research to get a type of plane that only really has one specific use.
Then once you finally get rocket interceptors, that's another production line you need to commit to those things when you could be committing those factories to fighters. Even the cheaper production cost will not immediately kick in vs. a fully efficient production line working on fighters.
That's not saying Rocket Ints aren't good at what they do, they're just super situational and in MP most wars have ended before they get researched, and in SP you shouldn't really be in a situation where you need them either.
he made a video about it, they're not worth it
This also shows that Tacs reaaaally suck at strat bombing.
They're fine for naval and cas missions though.
Tacs are really niche. For them to be optimal you need a long list of requirements:
- limited research slots,
- having relatively large air zones / limited airbases,
- wanting all kinds of bombing,
- wanting to save a little on fuel while being able to run those 24h/7d,
- having quite a lot of aluminium,
Before NSB I did the math using wiki and posted my findings on paradox forum. Compared to the same IC of CAS+STRAT in 1:1 proportion you are getting the same strat bombing while getting 20% less ground support but way more NAV mission capability. Compared to CAS+NAV+STRAT (1:1:1) you are getting 20% more ground support, almost the same NAV but 30% less strategic bombing. That's all assuming that CASs and NAVs have 100% coverage, 1940 variants, no advisors and doctrines. You are also getting around 19% more Air Superiority by going TAC's.
The only thing that I think TAC's have going for them is that if you are in need of multiple air missions, you are upgrading way faster through air exp which means you are getting more quicker. Maybe even you could go for ahead of time model in the time others research all 3 plane variants.
Fun fact: on Ground support air doctrine, TAC's while doing CAS missions have slightly more air defence that up to date AA in 1940 which means they should have better survivability.
Ah so the whole AA does nothing against strat bombers thing was a myth. Figured as much. Annoying it doesn't prevent logistics however.
You don't pay attention to the 41K disrupted due to strategic bombers
imho you should just always sum up the results in a graph or just by saying so at the end of the video. gj anyway!
you didnt do rocket fighter test bruh
AA does not work against Logistic Strikes and it has been like that for a quite some time now.
I think its stupid, but it is intentional afaik, because it has been mentioned many times yet not changed.
In my many playthroughs I still have not found a effective way to stop the 2000 bomber doomstacks the USA always brings in.
They always logistic bomb and if you put out a Intercept mission they just change zones the next day.
They can even reach Italy, so to effectively defend against them is impossible unless you have about 8k-10k fighters on intercept.
Kinda stupid...
I solve it by getting 5k heavy fighters, and putting 400-800 of them per air zone to shoot down the stats, without having to check and switch them around every 24h :')
Why weapons and not engines on heavy fighters?
weapons are better in basically every situation you come across for heavy fighters.
They gotta make a dlc to fix the airplanes. I do not agree with how it is working so far.
As doesnt shoot cas only strats
I personally find the comparison not quite fair as the upgrades on fighters and heavy fighters are quite different. I would personally prioritize engines on both and throw in weapons as an extra option, mostly on regular fighters though, because the agility loss on regular fighters is much more significant.
Well luckily, I know how to do the math to determine that heavy fighters do prefer weapon upgrades over engine upgrades.
@@71Cloak You're aware of the agility penalty then? Agility is much more relevant on heavy fighters with bombers than for regular fighters. I'd argue it is much better to upgrade guns on regular fighters if you're using them for interception specifically. Engine upgrades are relevant when they are fighting other fighters, but against other types of planes, the agility is much less relevant.
In my opinion you should put the same upgrades on those planes if you want to make a fair comparison.
@@tijmenwillard2337 i am aware of the full calculation for damage on both sides. When attacking fighters with agility. Heavy fighters with max weapons do more damage than heavy fighters with agility.
I have a whole excel spreadsheet that I can update for any scenario I want.
@@71Cloak I would like to see your calculations then, because mine gave a much better KD on engine upgrades and adding weapons would only decrease this. For fighters it was different. Adding engine is the most effective, but adding guns as well will make them better
So first off, the wiki does have the math for this is you would like to reference any of my numbers: hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_combat
Case 1: Heavy Fighter 2s with Max Weapons vs Fighter 2s with Max Engines
Fighters damage at 100 planes = 0.01*100*(27/15)*(1+ [(((780-522.5)/1500)+((87.7-22.5)/100))*0.3])*(MIN(-MIN(((22.5/87.7)-1),1.5)/1.5*0.675,0) [note: there might be a better way of doing this in excel but it gives the right answer anyways]*.1
=0.0224
Heavy Fighters damage at 100 planes = 0.01*100*(69/12)*(1-.2471)*(1-.675)*0.1 = 0.0141
This means fighter 2s will do 0.0224 damage / 100 planes and Hvy FIghter 2s will do 0.0141 damage / 100 planes. Fighter 2s are doing 1.595x the damage heavy fighters are doing
Case 2: Heavy Fighters with max engines vs Fighter 2s with max engines
Fighters damage at 100 planes = 0.01*100*(27/15)*(1+.1856)*(1+0)*0.1=0.213 damage / 100 planes
Heavy Fighters damage at 100 planes = 0.01*100*(46/12)*(1-0.1856)*(1-0.605)*0.1 = 0.0124 damage/ 100 planes
This means fighter 2s are doing 1.72x more damage than heavy fighters. Therefore, max weapons is better one heavy fighters than max engines.
so based on these recent videos, heavy fighters are just a waste of time?
Well I for one never use them.
@@71Cloak I thought the main use of heavy fighters was in places like Asia or Africa where the range between airbases can be extreme, meaning regular fighters might not be able to cover everything. Thoughts?
@@TheThinKing23 still don't use them. Just put some range upgrades on your fighters and you will be fine.
@@TheThinKing23 The only time I use heavy fighter is sometimes for the USA because you can get the heavy fighter 3 fast with the research bonuses, otherwise there really is no point
You should have tried fighters with max engine and max guns they will do as good as heavy fighters
But then you need to have Heavy Fighters with max engines and guns too. The experiment is about trying Fighters vs H Fighters of the same XP cost
@@satanhell_lord no because if you “need” heavy fighters then you need both as heavy fighters suck against normal fighters and both would require 350 xp same as fighter with gun 5 engine 5
@@satanhell_lord and gun on fighter makes it able to do the heavy fighters job engine on heavy fighter does not allow the same
Strat bombers 3, with the 25% defense bonus from air doctrine (62.5), are immune to fighters 3 with maxed weapons, though
@@MrNicoJac no they arent. fighters get more stats out of the air doctrine than bombers do fighter 2 with max guns can deal with strat 3
From i see, STATIC AA cant shoot down small planes
you are looking at the stuff from the last day, not month
Day looks at the last month.
Please spend a little more time at the end to explain your findings in summary. Otherwise, useful video.
Bro u still have radars in there remove them
Radars don't actually do anything for aa. Its the tech that does it. Their is a reason I said it was the most favorable situation for aa.
Engine 5 lmaooo
Go for range and realitibity