With the recent changes in patch 1.13.5 of Arms Against Tyranny, we take a look at CAS and TACs to see which is better. Join the Discord: / discord #hoi4 #hoi4_gameplay #hoi4_planes
I can only say I feel sad for the Soviets for not having a CAS designer. It's quite ironic given the Shturmovik usage that Ilyushin isn't a CAS designer. SOV air MIOs are quite a mess in general as far as historicity goes.
A few things to add : 1) It's possible to mitigate losses to divisional AA in battles. While not mentioned explicitly in the damage calculations for aircraft on CAS missions, there's something worth keeping in mind when you win a battle ; you recover equipment. I don't remember if the maintenance company is necessary, but you can check the combat log and notice that you can recover aircraft that have been shot down on CAS. Heck, I've even recovered allied aircraft that have been shot down on CAS, and IIRC, the recovery thing is so odd you may recover more equipment than you actually lost sometimes... 2) If the few points of ground attack/strategic bombing aren't worth it, you can put an MG module in the first slot to turn the tactical bomber into a heavy fighter. This gives a 1.25x air superiority multiplier and probably fighter bonuses from your air doctrine. 3) From the HOI4 wiki, it seems air defense on aircraft assigned to CAS missions is only useful if engaged by enemy aircraft. So an interesting question is whether it's worth even having some air defense on those aircraft, if fighter cover is sufficient. Why not go all the way and reduce strategic material use on those aircraft, and use the savings for a better fighter escort ? 4) If losses to divisional AA are significant, why not forsake CAS and go heavy on air superiority and strategic bombing ? If strategic bombing is overwhelming, I doubt the enemy can bring divisions to the front in tip-top shape if all the roads, railways and supply depots are destroyed, so the divisions will lose equipment just moving from tile to tile. Also, strategic bombing hits trains every now and then IIRC.
I think there is something wrong with the theater view. You mentioned recovering more than you lost, but I've also seen bizarre equipment listed that I don't have in a single template in the field. While I love using it, I am no longer sure I trust the data it's showing me. Just as an example, I had a Barbarossa where I (Soviets) lost and recovered a few hundred Bulgarian armored cars. No template in the entire army had that equipment. So, even if I was stealing Bulgarian armored cars from Bulgarian divisions, how in the Hell was I losing them and recovering them?
@@counterfactualgaming The recovery process seems to also recover allied equipment involved in the battle. For example, playing as U.S., I recovered Wellingtons and Typhoons that ended up in my stockpile. It's especially noteworthy since that creates a CAS stockpile, which I normally don't produce.
ahktually, if you put enough ground attack on your planes and/or figh often on plains, your planes can slowly destroy enemy AA equipment in enemy divisions and trough that reduce their further losses against divisional AA. :P Also if you attach CAS to your army, then they support that army primarly. So it doesn't matter that there 50 other battles.
I have never had that much luck with attaching planes to a specific army. They never seem to do what I want. As for bombing divisions to destroy AA guns, you'll be sacrificing a lot of planes to kill those AA guns. 😲
I noticed when I played Denmark and holding off Germany directly on the border on plains, that the enemy divisons to barely any damage because of my forts, but I am still losing lots of AA guns because of the full brunt of enemy CAS. I probably shoot down alot aswell, but still. ^^
@@Voigt151 I figure the easy to tell whose winning is to count dead planes per month (from AA only) versus dead AA guns (no attrition losses factored in). While I'm sure Germany in competent hands could run you out of AA guns eventually, I'm guessing in terms of IC cost the AA guns could at least kill 5:1 their cost in dead planes if you have support AA in everything.
Thanks for the video, in a normal joint game they now also install air defense in the battalions, so the losses per day are 96-112 attack aircraft on the eastern front...
Excellent explanation, thnx. But do have 1 question--------> Do you get the bonus by just using Junkers, or is there a specific route you have take in it to get the bonus, and how long; if so, does it take?
Nothing special in the trait order. Junkers and all the CAS designers have very obvious ground attack bonuses. Should finish out around 10 traits IIRC. But there are plenty of incremental bonuses along the way to boost ground attack. Depending on how fast you want to level it, you might use Junkers for all aircraft research. But you need fighters too, so it's a question of whether you want to speed level Junkers or Messerschmitt.
You can designate a specific plane type to a specific battle. Make a dedicated air wing that only reinforces that type of craft, attach it to a general that only had a few divisions. Then they will always be in the battle of those few divisions.
I know you can't assign specific planes to battles but you could assign them to an army so they should only get into battles with that army rather than the entire zone, right?
About the CAS plane at 17:09 : I think I have a better design that does the same job: Anti-Tank Cannon II + 2 * Rocket Rails = 23 Ground Attack (vs 22) Since my Weapons have only a weight of 14 (vs 16), you can get Dive Brakes or a second Extra Fuel Tanks. (both are 2 weight). To make it even better my plane has 20 agility (vs 1) so you could add even a Heavy MG Defense Turret ( 2 weight). But I am not sure if this is a good idea. The downsides of the plane: You can not Attack naval targets. (But your plane is bad at this vs a torpedo plane anyway). It is a bit more expensive 37 (+ the second module cost if you like) vs 30 production cost.
So the real question here is do you use ground attack or logistics strike? I find when I have to deal with long ranges and large provinces (in Africa or sea zones or the Pacific), logistics strikes are a more effective use of resources. Starve the enemy rather than kill them.
There is a plane armour module that does reduce losses to divisional AA but it does impact range speed agility cost etc of the plane it is unlocked by the 1939 era tech plane survivability its what also unlocks self sealing fuel tanks
This is the greatest video for hoi 4 I have ever seen. You didn't just slam us with "use this" you taught the positives and negatives of it all. I am new to hoi4 and never considered production cost into anything I ever do in the game.
That's part of my style. I don't want you to be able to complete a multiple choice test of HOI4 with "correct" answers. I want you to be able to see a strategic or tactical situation and know your options. 😀
Can you check if signal companys are increasing ground damage, and how? I have just a feeling about this in game that runs with signal are somehow feels more smooth. Also can you confirm if you make a heavy fighter + tac bomb bay and strat modules for bombing airfields then you get the + 25% bomber defense? I use there to get 1.25 air superiority by plane, and get 10% extra agility be side acting as a fighter contesting air superiority. Old version was to build a CAS (first modul) but as fighter and use the +20% agility on close air mission with rockets and continiius air strike +25% air support efficiency to get uber result aginst interception, once the fighters were done it swiches for air superiority.
Signals give coordination so you deal more damage to the top enemy division in the stack. As a result you end up doing a lot more damage to that one division, which is good because if the total amount of damage (soft attack / hard attack depending on hardness) it receives is higher than its defense, it takes 4x as much org and strength damage. Therefore you deal damage more quickly than if it were spread out across multiple divisions. Signals also give reinforce rate so as your divisions deorg, reserve divisions can join the battle much more quickly which means you minimize the amount of time you're not using the maximum possible combat width. Needless to say I think they are a very underrated support company and well worth it for the price, since they require 20 support equipment (instead of 30 like engineers or hospitals) and 10 trucks, which you are most likely producing anyway for supply.
If you have the rocket techs done, it's certainly an option. It also makes an interesting choice for the fourth slot on the 1944 air frame since that slot can only be used for CAS weapons even on a fighter. P-51s with rockets incoming.
It`s also much better to put rockets in third slot if you need more range, as that allows extra fuel tank or drop tank then to have 2 engines, the ground attack reduction of 2 to save 3 units of weight is acceptable.
I recently tested just putting bomb locks on a fighter chassis. Plane count already gives you the % damage bonus. What surprised me is that these can also overpower repairs on log strikes really easily. Great multi-role light airframe that doesn't cost much.
It's even easier to do with 1944 air frames since one of the top row slots is locked to ground attack modules. Might as well put some rockets or bomb locks there and multi-role enemy trains to death.
@@counterfactualgaming Yeah, way less opportunity cost then. It's what I was using. For earlier use, I'd still favor using cheap junk because you're still capping your "air support" % damage multiplier on ground forces (which is a significant part of the value of CAS, as long as you're not purely roaching) and because even the trashiest CAS still annihilates logistics when it pivots into bombing them. Thus IMO even 3-4x the ground attack per plane doing CAS role isn't really giving that much more value, I'm not sure if it's even really 2x.
@@TheMelnTeam You have ironically hit on something I want to discuss in a future video, but the last tests I did were inconclusive. The short version is that there are only a finite number of trains, trucks, and railways you can bomb via log strikes regardless of ground attack values. And bombing supply hubs themselves (via strategic bombing) does nothing even when the building is killed. So, I have to figure out what the threshold is for log strike oversaturation and how much impact ground attack values have. The last test I did had 1000 CAS over Benelux, and it was clearly overkill after 4-5 days. More testing required.
Hi im a noob but doesnt refitting factor in on the costs like with boats? So if you build medium airframe fighters cant you refit them to tacs or something like that somehow? The game tells about some sort of refit costs for planes too. With ships playing small nations you can save tonnes of civs/ iron etc imports by building a trash frame with a gun and then refitting them later with all the new toys researched while making the hull.
As I've discovered more recently, there are still some bugs in refitting related to cost and resources. So, it's possible to scam rubber costs on planes until Paradox fixes that exploit (which I thought had been fixed already).
Dual engine 3, improved medium frame, 2x tac bombs, 2x smal bombs, and take range designer. I put them on CAS and Strat bombing. Logi bombing is too dangerous because AI makes armored trains.
I would do the exact same things as you would with CAS and TAC. In fact, I just checked the Junkers designer to be sure, and the massive ground attack bonus from Junkers (and other CAS designers) applies to LOG strikes as well. The dual-engine CAS I designed provides 46.5 ground attack on LOG strikes just like it does on ground attack. Note that as I said in the video, I have no data on armored trains, so I don't know if there is some magical exploit that makes planes super effective against them. But 46.5 ground attack on LOG strikes is enough to kill plenty of trucks, trains, and damage railways.
MIOs are game-changing. Also i have to point out that personally i build both to suit both roles. I try to maximise range on cas and minimise cost on tacs. Always lowest amount of engines that could provide decent cas damage. I have to admit i neglected AT guns until now.
I have prefered TACS even prior to the plane rework simply because they have so much more range and it allows you to operate from your back airfields and use your front line and secondary airfields for fighters. Often in MP the limiting factor for air is airfields and not planes. So the further back you can use your bombers the better. This is really necessary for germany but can be extremely helpful for the western allies as well as Britian will fill up with airfields quick.
Lol, i never though about the cost when designing, i alway put "the best" stuff on plane, when you compare the Super Heavy Tank to that TAC just mind blow me
Have something in the works about that. But the original content was rendered obsolete by the recent patch. TVascor and I had found a loophole that let heavy fighters with Fiat beat light fighters in some cases. But, alas, new tests need to be done.
Are you sure thats how air coverage works? My impression was that you dont need full coverage for it to effect a battle. All not having full coverage does is lower the efficiency, so the chance that they enter the battle are low, but not zero.
I have never in the past year of play seen TACs or CAS enter a battle they were out of range off in an air region they were active in. No matter how low the chances are, after 2000 hours I should have noticed (I think, I guess I won't discount the 00,01% percent) Spending a lot of time, fighting in Siberia as Russia in Kaiserredux or as the USSR against Japan in vanilla (The airbase placement around Manchuria is just bad.) Range is something one learns to pay attention to the hard way.
Yep, that's how it works for ground attack. This also applies to naval strike and port strike outside of carrier combat. Log strikes, air superiority, interception, and so on just use mission efficiency. It's why I showed it at the beginning. Once you know this, it changes how you view ground attack and range.
I do mention that. TACs are superior out in the Pacific. With current MIOs, the US can really get tons of range out there and bomb stuff all over the place.
I do that sometimes as the USSR, I usually hold Germany in Poland so I us the TACs to destroy railways and supply hubs behind the line. I usually just stick to figures and CAS though
A few years ago (and maybe even now), there were MP games where strategic bombers were banned. In those situations, TACs became the tool to do all that stuff. As for me, over the past 6 months, I've decided that I'd rather just bomb logistics in general to hinder the enemy army, or build actual strategic bombers to specifically target airfields, state AA, and RADARs. Log strikes, for me at least, are pretty damn good at killing rails and infrastructure.
@@tastyactual5491 How times have changed. I also heard from other players that paratroopers are currently banned due to Combat Insertion being overpowered.
@@counterfactualgaming technically they have two cas designers as their fighter designers also doubles and they have access to other nations mios too. Just played a Ferdinand run where I had Italian, German, and Soviet tank Designers . And Italian German Soviet and British ship builders. Though I tend to favour carrier based navies so I used the Varna shipyard (carrier task force MIO, don’t know if any other nations get one of those) Funnily enough it’s possible for the 2nd world war chain to happen twice in one game, don’t know how the AI managed that considering historical AI focuses + Yalta conference happened. And I didn’t meddle in the partitioning of Germany.
@@phsycresconquest6636 Wait, so Bulgaria can inherit the other MIOs via the Ferdinand chain, plus the Soviet ship MIOs? I didn't know that they could grab anything from the Soviets.
@@counterfactualgaming you just need good relations, that’s the only check box…. Bulgaria can just straight up always inherit other MIOs via their army and industry focus tree, they just need to not do the Nationalise focus as far as I understand. It just happens Ferdinand is non-aligned and as such is able to capitalise on all of them. Of course they “go away” once war starts between Bulgaria and the nation of origin.
@@phsycresconquest6636 Good to know. It's probably obvious now, but I rarely play any country in the Balkans. I have a running feud with Bulgaria and the pieces that sometimes break off of Yugoslavia and refuse to play them. 😄
If u do a lot of "Spearhead Action" with just a few Battles at the same Time, i do believe Tac-Bombers with a bunch of CAS Weapons perform much better than Single Engine CAS. Just by the simple Fact of the overall better Ground attack Stats.
Concentration of force versus overall firepower. What you are saying has merit, especially if a country does not have the CAS designer available. You still have to deal with the AA losses being more expensive with TACs, however.
@@counterfactualgaming fair point, i ve to test it in practice. but i think it is relative hard to get your "Mio" to the Point where u get the 50%. I just played some USA Games since the "Mio-Update" it rly does take a lot of IC and research to get Mio-exp. And as USA i think, i was doing fine just using the "Fighter Designer" for Fighters and TAC-CAS. otherwise i think u spread out to much XP for the MIO's. may need some more Testing.
There's an argument that you might use them in the Pacific from land bases using the range designer Japan and the US have, but the use cases for TAC are few and far between thanks to Junkers and the other designers.
CAS is just superior to medium bombers in terms of pure IC, you can pretty much double the amount of cas, which means you do more damage, and if you just want ground attack there is literally no point in building tac bombers just for ground attack, so inefficient. CAS with 2 range modules is sufficient enough for Europe and USSR. Dual engine sure if you want to spend more IC and IF you have enough FUEL. Good use for tacs would be like pacific, but then you want some naval attack, so again master of all kinda thing seems more efficient for the IC you will have to spend. Also the main thing I guess is what do you want your planes to do, which also brings in the question of AI which you can beat with 1 finger while 98% asleep. So yea building tacs for Logistic striking and ground attack is the definition of stupidity.
Hello, l am from turkey thank u for ur effort on this video. I have some points which are very important. Look at the AGILITY in ur designs!! It is very bad. LET ME EXPLAIN: Because u put alot of weight on ur plane, that's why ur agility is very low. AGILITY PROVİDE A HUGE CAS SUPPORT!!. I think u r missing this point. U got around 30 ground support but u got around -%40 close air support!! Is it worth?
Agility is not the most important stat for CAS. It has value for air to air combat and when facing naval AA on ships, but unless you are creating multi-role aircraft, I wouldn't worry about agility. Note that there are CAS agility boosts in Battlefield Support air doctrine tree.
@@counterfactualgaming well, u r right but let me tell you sth, agility is important for fighters l know, but l told you many times that LOW AGILITY DECREASES close air support stat DRAMATICALLY (-35%) U put bombs for ground attack but u lost all agility which provides u +35% close air support stat. u get around 30 ground attack but u lose 35% air support. Is it worth it?
I can only say I feel sad for the Soviets for not having a CAS designer. It's quite ironic given the Shturmovik usage that Ilyushin isn't a CAS designer. SOV air MIOs are quite a mess in general as far as historicity goes.
IL-2 doing brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
You can just put cannons in first slot then build it like a cas
Especially since there were more Ilyushin 2s than there were Stukas and Thunderbolts. Combined.
I am so glad that I am subscribed to this channel. This is the kind of detailed analysis that I need.
Always happy to provide a detailed analysis. 😀
The aside on armored trains is an example of exactly why I like this channel. Anyone who has the ability to say "I don't know" has my respect
A few things to add :
1) It's possible to mitigate losses to divisional AA in battles. While not mentioned explicitly in the damage calculations for aircraft on CAS missions, there's something worth keeping in mind when you win a battle ; you recover equipment. I don't remember if the maintenance company is necessary, but you can check the combat log and notice that you can recover aircraft that have been shot down on CAS. Heck, I've even recovered allied aircraft that have been shot down on CAS, and IIRC, the recovery thing is so odd you may recover more equipment than you actually lost sometimes...
2) If the few points of ground attack/strategic bombing aren't worth it, you can put an MG module in the first slot to turn the tactical bomber into a heavy fighter. This gives a 1.25x air superiority multiplier and probably fighter bonuses from your air doctrine.
3) From the HOI4 wiki, it seems air defense on aircraft assigned to CAS missions is only useful if engaged by enemy aircraft. So an interesting question is whether it's worth even having some air defense on those aircraft, if fighter cover is sufficient. Why not go all the way and reduce strategic material use on those aircraft, and use the savings for a better fighter escort ?
4) If losses to divisional AA are significant, why not forsake CAS and go heavy on air superiority and strategic bombing ? If strategic bombing is overwhelming, I doubt the enemy can bring divisions to the front in tip-top shape if all the roads, railways and supply depots are destroyed, so the divisions will lose equipment just moving from tile to tile. Also, strategic bombing hits trains every now and then IIRC.
I think there is something wrong with the theater view. You mentioned recovering more than you lost, but I've also seen bizarre equipment listed that I don't have in a single template in the field.
While I love using it, I am no longer sure I trust the data it's showing me. Just as an example, I had a Barbarossa where I (Soviets) lost and recovered a few hundred Bulgarian armored cars. No template in the entire army had that equipment. So, even if I was stealing Bulgarian armored cars from Bulgarian divisions, how in the Hell was I losing them and recovering them?
@@counterfactualgaming The recovery process seems to also recover allied equipment involved in the battle.
For example, playing as U.S., I recovered Wellingtons and Typhoons that ended up in my stockpile. It's especially noteworthy since that creates a CAS stockpile, which I normally don't produce.
When I play fortress Netherlands I got so many allied plane just for winning hundreds of battles
@@counterfactualgaming Don't quote me on this one but i think there MIOs for support equipment that increases equip. Capture ratio.
Edit: thats wrong
@@georgemakrov6174 If there is, point me to it and I can run some extra tests.
ahktually, if you put enough ground attack on your planes and/or figh often on plains, your planes can slowly destroy enemy AA equipment in enemy divisions and trough that reduce their further losses against divisional AA. :P
Also if you attach CAS to your army, then they support that army primarly. So it doesn't matter that there 50 other battles.
I have never had that much luck with attaching planes to a specific army. They never seem to do what I want.
As for bombing divisions to destroy AA guns, you'll be sacrificing a lot of planes to kill those AA guns. 😲
Well you know what they say. Never send a knight to do a pawn's job.@@counterfactualgaming
@@Kardia_of_Rhodes And with that comment, all the infantry divisions sigh and go back to work... 🤣
I noticed when I played Denmark and holding off Germany directly on the border on plains, that the enemy divisons to barely any damage because of my forts, but I am still losing lots of AA guns because of the full brunt of enemy CAS. I probably shoot down alot aswell, but still. ^^
@@Voigt151 I figure the easy to tell whose winning is to count dead planes per month (from AA only) versus dead AA guns (no attrition losses factored in). While I'm sure Germany in competent hands could run you out of AA guns eventually, I'm guessing in terms of IC cost the AA guns could at least kill 5:1 their cost in dead planes if you have support AA in everything.
Thanks for the video, in a normal joint game they now also install air defense in the battalions, so the losses per day are 96-112 attack aircraft on the eastern front...
If I had better photoshop skills, I'd post a pic of an AA gun saying "Nom nom nom."
Excellent explanation, thnx. But do have 1 question--------> Do you get the bonus by just using Junkers, or is there a specific route you have take in it to get the bonus, and how long; if so, does it take?
Nothing special in the trait order. Junkers and all the CAS designers have very obvious ground attack bonuses. Should finish out around 10 traits IIRC. But there are plenty of incremental bonuses along the way to boost ground attack.
Depending on how fast you want to level it, you might use Junkers for all aircraft research. But you need fighters too, so it's a question of whether you want to speed level Junkers or Messerschmitt.
You can designate a specific plane type to a specific battle. Make a dedicated air wing that only reinforces that type of craft, attach it to a general that only had a few divisions. Then they will always be in the battle of those few divisions.
I know you can't assign specific planes to battles but you could assign them to an army so they should only get into battles with that army rather than the entire zone, right?
About the CAS plane at 17:09 :
I think I have a better design that does the same job:
Anti-Tank Cannon II + 2 * Rocket Rails = 23 Ground Attack (vs 22)
Since my Weapons have only a weight of 14 (vs 16), you can get Dive Brakes or a second Extra Fuel Tanks. (both are 2 weight).
To make it even better my plane has 20 agility (vs 1) so you could add even a Heavy MG Defense Turret ( 2 weight). But I am not sure if this is a good idea.
The downsides of the plane:
You can not Attack naval targets. (But your plane is bad at this vs a torpedo plane anyway).
It is a bit more expensive 37 (+ the second module cost if you like) vs 30 production cost.
That could work if you are grabbing the rocket artillery tech anyway and you don't care about bombing ships.
very clear explanation, ty !
You are quite welcome.
So the real question here is do you use ground attack or logistics strike? I find when I have to deal with long ranges and large provinces (in Africa or sea zones or the Pacific), logistics strikes are a more effective use of resources. Starve the enemy rather than kill them.
You earned my sub
Thanks!
There is a plane armour module that does reduce losses to divisional AA but it does impact range speed agility cost etc of the plane it is unlocked by the 1939 era tech plane survivability its what also unlocks self sealing fuel tanks
The armor plates modules does not impact losses from divisions AA. It only increases air defense.
Me clicking on this video: oh hey this could be interesting
Me seeing the video length: ahhh shit (watches anyways)
If UA-cam would let me, I'd serve drinks with my video. I figure half an hour is one good margarita.
This is the greatest video for hoi 4 I have ever seen. You didn't just slam us with "use this" you taught the positives and negatives of it all. I am new to hoi4 and never considered production cost into anything I ever do in the game.
That's part of my style. I don't want you to be able to complete a multiple choice test of HOI4 with "correct" answers. I want you to be able to see a strategic or tactical situation and know your options. 😀
Can you check if signal companys are increasing ground damage, and how?
I have just a feeling about this in game that runs with signal are somehow feels more smooth.
Also can you confirm if you make a heavy fighter + tac bomb bay and strat modules for bombing airfields then you get the + 25% bomber defense?
I use there to get 1.25 air superiority by plane, and get 10% extra agility be side acting as a fighter contesting air superiority.
Old version was to build a CAS (first modul) but as fighter and use the +20% agility on close air mission with rockets and continiius air strike +25% air support efficiency to get uber result aginst interception, once the fighters were done it swiches for air superiority.
Signals give coordination so you deal more damage to the top enemy division in the stack. As a result you end up doing a lot more damage to that one division, which is good because if the total amount of damage (soft attack / hard attack depending on hardness) it receives is higher than its defense, it takes 4x as much org and strength damage. Therefore you deal damage more quickly than if it were spread out across multiple divisions. Signals also give reinforce rate so as your divisions deorg, reserve divisions can join the battle much more quickly which means you minimize the amount of time you're not using the maximum possible combat width.
Needless to say I think they are a very underrated support company and well worth it for the price, since they require 20 support equipment (instead of 30 like engineers or hospitals) and 10 trucks, which you are most likely producing anyway for supply.
I like changing the Bomb locks in the third slot for rockets with the single engine CAS
If you have the rocket techs done, it's certainly an option. It also makes an interesting choice for the fourth slot on the 1944 air frame since that slot can only be used for CAS weapons even on a fighter. P-51s with rockets incoming.
It`s also much better to put rockets in third slot if you need more range, as that allows extra fuel tank or drop tank then to have 2 engines, the ground attack reduction of 2 to save 3 units of weight is acceptable.
I recently tested just putting bomb locks on a fighter chassis. Plane count already gives you the % damage bonus. What surprised me is that these can also overpower repairs on log strikes really easily. Great multi-role light airframe that doesn't cost much.
It's even easier to do with 1944 air frames since one of the top row slots is locked to ground attack modules. Might as well put some rockets or bomb locks there and multi-role enemy trains to death.
@@counterfactualgaming Yeah, way less opportunity cost then. It's what I was using.
For earlier use, I'd still favor using cheap junk because you're still capping your "air support" % damage multiplier on ground forces (which is a significant part of the value of CAS, as long as you're not purely roaching) and because even the trashiest CAS still annihilates logistics when it pivots into bombing them. Thus IMO even 3-4x the ground attack per plane doing CAS role isn't really giving that much more value, I'm not sure if it's even really 2x.
@@TheMelnTeam You have ironically hit on something I want to discuss in a future video, but the last tests I did were inconclusive.
The short version is that there are only a finite number of trains, trucks, and railways you can bomb via log strikes regardless of ground attack values. And bombing supply hubs themselves (via strategic bombing) does nothing even when the building is killed. So, I have to figure out what the threshold is for log strike oversaturation and how much impact ground attack values have.
The last test I did had 1000 CAS over Benelux, and it was clearly overkill after 4-5 days. More testing required.
Hi im a noob but doesnt refitting factor in on the costs like with boats? So if you build medium airframe fighters cant you refit them to tacs or something like that somehow?
The game tells about some sort of refit costs for planes too.
With ships playing small nations you can save tonnes of civs/ iron etc imports by building a trash frame with a gun and then refitting them later with all the new toys researched while making the hull.
As I've discovered more recently, there are still some bugs in refitting related to cost and resources. So, it's possible to scam rubber costs on planes until Paradox fixes that exploit (which I thought had been fixed already).
Dual engine 3, improved medium frame, 2x tac bombs, 2x smal bombs, and take range designer. I put them on CAS and Strat bombing. Logi bombing is too dangerous because AI makes armored trains.
how would you design an ideal logi strike aircraft?
I would do the exact same things as you would with CAS and TAC. In fact, I just checked the Junkers designer to be sure, and the massive ground attack bonus from Junkers (and other CAS designers) applies to LOG strikes as well. The dual-engine CAS I designed provides 46.5 ground attack on LOG strikes just like it does on ground attack.
Note that as I said in the video, I have no data on armored trains, so I don't know if there is some magical exploit that makes planes super effective against them. But 46.5 ground attack on LOG strikes is enough to kill plenty of trucks, trains, and damage railways.
MIOs are game-changing.
Also i have to point out that personally i build both to suit both roles. I try to maximise range on cas and minimise cost on tacs. Always lowest amount of engines that could provide decent cas damage. I have to admit i neglected AT guns until now.
I have prefered TACS even prior to the plane rework simply because they have so much more range and it allows you to operate from your back airfields and use your front line and secondary airfields for fighters.
Often in MP the limiting factor for air is airfields and not planes. So the further back you can use your bombers the better. This is really necessary for germany but can be extremely helpful for the western allies as well as Britian will fill up with airfields quick.
I prefer tacs as they can also do shipping strikes and are fantastic in the Pacific
Good video
Thanks!
Lol, i never though about the cost when designing, i alway put "the best" stuff on plane, when you compare the Super Heavy Tank to that TAC just mind blow me
You should see what absurd costs I can get with large air frames.
How about heavy fighters vs ai fighters?
Have something in the works about that.
But the original content was rendered obsolete by the recent patch. TVascor and I had found a loophole that let heavy fighters with Fiat beat light fighters in some cases. But, alas, new tests need to be done.
damn junkers give +50% cas plus air doctrine and air advisor another 50% germany is buffed
I should have recorded the video in a Darth Vader voice:
"If you only knew the power of the Dark Side! I mean, CAS plus Battlefield Destruction!"
Are you sure thats how air coverage works? My impression was that you dont need full coverage for it to effect a battle. All not having full coverage does is lower the efficiency, so the chance that they enter the battle are low, but not zero.
I have never in the past year of play seen TACs or CAS enter a battle they were out of range off in an air region they were active in. No matter how low the chances are, after 2000 hours I should have noticed (I think, I guess I won't discount the 00,01% percent) Spending a lot of time, fighting in Siberia as Russia in Kaiserredux or as the USSR against Japan in vanilla (The airbase placement around Manchuria is just bad.) Range is something one learns to pay attention to the hard way.
@@Veniczar_pa ingesting I thought I heard on another channel that that’s how it works. Maybe it was for air superiority missions only
@@ELYELYELroy Thats probably what it was! It does sound closer to air superiority and how fighters could affect ground.
Yep, that's how it works for ground attack. This also applies to naval strike and port strike outside of carrier combat. Log strikes, air superiority, interception, and so on just use mission efficiency. It's why I showed it at the beginning. Once you know this, it changes how you view ground attack and range.
You should take into consideration the mission efficiency in non european air zones.
I do mention that. TACs are superior out in the Pacific. With current MIOs, the US can really get tons of range out there and bomb stuff all over the place.
Am I the only one who uses TACs for strateging bombing (mainly to destroy airfields, AA, rails and radars) during air war over air zones?
I do that sometimes as the USSR, I usually hold Germany in Poland so I us the TACs to destroy railways and supply hubs behind the line. I usually just stick to figures and CAS though
A few years ago (and maybe even now), there were MP games where strategic bombers were banned. In those situations, TACs became the tool to do all that stuff.
As for me, over the past 6 months, I've decided that I'd rather just bomb logistics in general to hinder the enemy army, or build actual strategic bombers to specifically target airfields, state AA, and RADARs.
Log strikes, for me at least, are pretty damn good at killing rails and infrastructure.
@@counterfactualgaming Nowadays logi strikes are banned in MP and strat bombing is allowed again.
@@tastyactual5491 How times have changed. I also heard from other players that paratroopers are currently banned due to Combat Insertion being overpowered.
Bulgaria also has a CAS designer, go figure why they have one but Japan doesnt
Another reason for me to get irritated at Bulgaria. IMRO and now their CAS designer. 😆
@@counterfactualgaming technically they have two cas designers as their fighter designers also doubles and they have access to other nations mios too. Just played a Ferdinand run where I had Italian, German, and Soviet tank Designers . And Italian German Soviet and British ship builders. Though I tend to favour carrier based navies so I used the Varna shipyard (carrier task force MIO, don’t know if any other nations get one of those)
Funnily enough it’s possible for the 2nd world war chain to happen twice in one game, don’t know how the AI managed that considering historical AI focuses + Yalta conference happened. And I didn’t meddle in the partitioning of Germany.
@@phsycresconquest6636 Wait, so Bulgaria can inherit the other MIOs via the Ferdinand chain, plus the Soviet ship MIOs? I didn't know that they could grab anything from the Soviets.
@@counterfactualgaming you just need good relations, that’s the only check box….
Bulgaria can just straight up always inherit other MIOs via their army and industry focus tree, they just need to not do the Nationalise focus as far as I understand. It just happens Ferdinand is non-aligned and as such is able to capitalise on all of them. Of course they “go away” once war starts between Bulgaria and the nation of origin.
@@phsycresconquest6636 Good to know.
It's probably obvious now, but I rarely play any country in the Balkans. I have a running feud with Bulgaria and the pieces that sometimes break off of Yugoslavia and refuse to play them. 😄
22:01 higher range by 37..
If u do a lot of "Spearhead Action" with just a few Battles at the same Time, i do believe Tac-Bombers with a bunch of CAS Weapons perform much better than Single Engine CAS.
Just by the simple Fact of the overall better Ground attack Stats.
Concentration of force versus overall firepower. What you are saying has merit, especially if a country does not have the CAS designer available. You still have to deal with the AA losses being more expensive with TACs, however.
@@counterfactualgaming fair point, i ve to test it in practice. but i think it is relative hard to get your "Mio" to the Point where u get the 50%. I just played some USA Games since the "Mio-Update" it rly does take a lot of IC and research to get Mio-exp. And as USA i think, i was doing fine just using the "Fighter Designer" for Fighters and TAC-CAS. otherwise i think u spread out to much XP for the MIO's. may need some more Testing.
TACs were already pretty bad. And now with the range nerf and the underwhelming TAC designer, they're pretty much unviable
There's an argument that you might use them in the Pacific from land bases using the range designer Japan and the US have, but the use cases for TAC are few and far between thanks to Junkers and the other designers.
Videos without loud music +100 DMG Vs videos with loud music -4 DMG
But I paid good money for that entire orchestra to play the music for my video in my living room! 😂
@@counterfactualgaming they are worth every penny. They're playing their heart out for sure 😂
15:43 it's pronounced "mouse" just like in english
If I say "mouse" in English, at least one of my cats will start looking for one. They don't know it's also a word in German and a tank. 😂
@@counterfactualgaming to be fair, the German word maus means mouse so they wouldn't be wrong. (Don't know why they named a tank that though)
Weird that so many in the Balkans have it.
greece and turkey have it from start, bulgaria can get it quickly unlocked through focus tree@@counterfactualgaming
@@counterfactualgamingit is one of, if not the most airfield dense regions in the game so it makes sense to me
@@TheTripleAce3Good point. I hadn't considered that.
such a weird video, who thought the cas operated outside of that ring anyway? its like answering a misconception I didnt have
What you will really think is weird is that I included that fact because I've literally heard people say the range rings never matter at all. 😕
CAS is just superior to medium bombers in terms of pure IC, you can pretty much double the amount of cas, which means you do more damage, and if you just want ground attack there is literally no point in building tac bombers just for ground attack, so inefficient. CAS with 2 range modules is sufficient enough for Europe and USSR.
Dual engine sure if you want to spend more IC and IF you have enough FUEL.
Good use for tacs would be like pacific, but then you want some naval attack, so again master of all kinda thing seems more efficient for the IC you will have to spend.
Also the main thing I guess is what do you want your planes to do, which also brings in the question of AI which you can beat with 1 finger while 98% asleep.
So yea building tacs for Logistic striking and ground attack is the definition of stupidity.
Hello, l am from turkey thank u for ur effort on this video. I have some points which are very important. Look at the AGILITY in ur designs!! It is very bad. LET ME EXPLAIN: Because u put alot of weight on ur plane, that's why ur agility is very low. AGILITY PROVİDE A HUGE CAS SUPPORT!!. I think u r missing this point. U got around 30 ground support but u got around -%40 close air support!! Is it worth?
U can not ignore agility while designing ur cas planes. It is a big mistake, am l wrong?
Agility is not the most important stat for CAS. It has value for air to air combat and when facing naval AA on ships, but unless you are creating multi-role aircraft, I wouldn't worry about agility. Note that there are CAS agility boosts in Battlefield Support air doctrine tree.
@@counterfactualgaming well, u r right but let me tell you sth, agility is important for fighters l know, but l told you many times that LOW AGILITY DECREASES close air support stat DRAMATICALLY (-35%) U put bombs for ground attack but u lost all agility which provides u +35% close air support stat. u get around 30 ground attack but u lose 35% air support. Is it worth it?
i wanted to watch it at first, but then i heard what a basic stuff you re gonna talk about and how long for... nahh no way
He put a time stamp for the technical section