Really good that they've buffed agility. Historically this probably mattered more than armour or firepower. Roll rate and climb rate were king. Outmaneuvering your opponent meant that you were hard to shoot down and you could get on top of them. Cannons were certainly important in the latter half of the war, but by that point the air war was a forgone conclusion.

@islandguy69

Жыл бұрын

you should look at how US defeated the Zero. Agility vs armour/firepower..

@leterrierdinari2861

Жыл бұрын

​@@islandguy69 Not really because of the firepower and armour as the zero was armed with 2 20mm cannons and 2 7.7mm machineguns wereas contemporary Hellcats would have 6 12.7mm (.50cal) machineguns. The zero was defeated by american fighters because the A6M2 was designed to be a dogfighter but american planes such as the f6f Hellcat or the F4U Corsair that the Zero would have face were energy fighters. They were able to climb higher, go faster and retain energy better than the zero. They would climb high to have an energetic advantage (potential energy) then dive on the japanese planes and fire to attack them and if they missed they just zoomed out being too fast for the zero to catch them, however if they were caught at low energy levels (low speed and low altitude for example) they would have been at a disadvantage because they would be outmaneuvered.

@razortheonethelight7303

Жыл бұрын

@@leterrierdinari2861 War Thunder players be like.

@vitas5333

Жыл бұрын

​@@leterrierdinari2861 You are both right, however Ive been diving into the term "energy fighter" and im really surprised im not finding that terminology used in both ww1 and ww2 because I hear it all the time in these gaming circles. (id love if anyone has an interview, training film, or written accounts of a pilot using the term in same way we do in modern day, would sink my whole theory!) Going through US interviews and training films listening for any reference to 'energy" in the context. They always are way more specific with speed, direction or specific maneuvers. I have not heard anything like "use the superior energy, maintain your energy etc". More stuff like "fight them with your head, using your judgement, your skill and plane handling and your superior gun handling to turn odds in your favor" (kzread.info/dash/bejne/dZOduZONY9zNaJM.html) . What really dug it home for me is this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory so it would make sense the term was not used previously. I understand im being super nit picky but I think im sick of reading comments about "Energy fighting zeros" when I cant find anything that supports that in training or interviews with pilots. It seems to me to be a hindsight gamified term. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat "When trials were flown against a captured A6M5 model Zero, they showed that the Hellcat was faster at all altitudes. The F6F out-climbed the Zero marginally above 14,000 ft (4,300 m) and rolled faster at speeds above 235 mph (378 km/h). The Japanese fighter could out-turn its American opponent with ease at low speed and enjoyed a slightly better rate of climb below 14,000 ft (4,300 m). The trials report concluded: Do not dogfight with a Zero 52. Do not try to follow a loop or half-roll with a pull-through. When attacking, use your superior power and high-speed performance to engage at the most favorable moment. To evade a Zero 52 on your tail, roll and dive away into a high-speed turn." Sorry If i come off as a cunt not trying to discredit ya I just found this rabbit hole fascinating. I sent same sort of post in a flight sim discord and someone else summed it up perfectly. "when you think about it every plane is manipulating energy to win its just the method in which they most efficiently use it that differs"

@leterrierdinari2861

Жыл бұрын

@Vitas @Vitas You can't find the term in documents probably because it's 'ot a contemporary term but an enveloping term that has been used to describe these kind of planes way after for simplicity. Think of it like sword vocabulary if you will, we nowadays have terms like broadsword, bastard sword, longsword, arming sword, Zweihänder etc but back then most people would just call them with less specific terms. Someone would see a "regular" arming sword and a broadsword and would just call them both swords. Energy fighter even if it's not the true terminology used by the pilots and the air force has some merits because it explains in two words with what fighting doctrine the planes were built. Like you said it yourself, to engage a zero they would need to use their superior speed and power (i imagine they are talking about the engine here, i might be wrong) and if they missed, dive and get out quickly. That's what energy fighting is, using potential energy and kinetic energy (height and speed) to have an advantage on your opponent. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers It might not be contemporary to WWII but you can find the term used in the article here, and in this navy flight manual too navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1222/Variable-Factors-P-12220018-18.htm

16:09 The reason why Medium Bombers are not meta is that the naval missions committed by Light Frames are more common then the ones with medium. Though a medium bomber can do more damage with one strike, light frames can trigger more missions in the same time frame and subsequently do more damage.

I don't think I agree on keeping the engine small when dealing with single-engine fighters. The price difference between the engine tiers when it's only a single engine is so minimal (especially when you look at the combined airframe+engine cost) that the higher speed should more than make up for the small cost increase.

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

Ya engines are currently a exploit . putting a 2 engines on small frame should not make the plane go faster. According Boeing adding engines to a plane only gives a plane more thrust NOT speed.

@ianperry8557

Жыл бұрын

@@roboparkswhich makes sense we see the same thing with most any motorized vehicle. Got more power but not necessarily more speed.

@magni5648

Жыл бұрын

@@roboparks Erm, I'm not talking about putting two engines on your light airframe. That actually IS quite a bit more expensive than a single engine and doesn't improve speed. What I'm talking about is putting on a higher-tier engine. Going from a single engine 2 to a single engine 3 gives a lot of extra speed for a relatively trivial cost increase.

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

This was going to be my main quibble with his video. In the real world engine performance was a massive capability boost, and the cost here is probably worth it - though I'm sure somebody can do the number crunching.

@spindash64

Жыл бұрын

@@magni5648 Yeah, the actual relation is more like (newspeed-oldspeed) = (newpower-oldpower)^3 Actually, engines really SHOULD influence agility slightly if they don’t right now: rate of climb was one of the most important combat factors of WWII aircraft, allowing a fighter to decide when and where a fight will happen Edit: they changed the formula at some point here: now Speed is NOT affected by adding more engines. The only way to buff OR nerf max speed is with designers, airframes and engine TIERS. Weight has no effect T/W instead affects AGILITY, meaning a Twin engined fighter CAN outmaneuver a single engine fighter if both are built to the same weight

21.53 The series of RAF planes here are indeed approximations of historical planes. The Mk. 2 hurricane should probably have engine 2 to be more historically accurate (early Spits and Hurris had very similar engines). As they were replaced by spitfires in the interceptor role, older Hurricanes were subsequently fitted with heavy anti-tank cannons in the North African campaign and were remarkably effective tank-busters. The Typhoon did indeed have rocket rails, and was arguably the single most effective CAS plane of the war, having been originally designed as a fighter. IRL, air forces were *very* reluctant to put anything in the air that didn't have some machine guns or cannons for defending against enemy interceptors, even if such fittings reduced agility, so the cannons make sense. Similarly, many strategic bombers would have been much more cost effective without all the (fairly ineffective) turrets, but the illusion of defense was considered vital for morale. Air crews really didn't want to feel defenseless in the air.

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

I don't believe any Hurricanes or Typhoon had 2 engines.

@jackallan1270

Жыл бұрын

@@roboparks tech 2 engines not 2 whole actual engines

@barnykirashi

Жыл бұрын

Turrets on bombers were defensively viable, but not because of actually hitting and damaging attacking aircraft, but because no fighter pilot would fly close to the bullett hell that a B-17 sent towards them. They were just used to scare off attackers. The Lancaster though had nearly no armament, 3 turrets all with 2 7.7mm, which is basically useless, but at least the Lanc could carry 14000 pounds of bombs, which is significant.

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

@@barnykirashi B-17 had Gunner five .30 caliber (7.62 mm) machine guns, on it . That would be Light Machine Gun in game play. It did not have 20mm cannon are bigger or .50 caliber (12.7×99mm ) Machine guns

@spindash64

Жыл бұрын

@@roboparks Depends on the model, but the B-17G had THIRTEEN .50 cal machine guns. And an important aspect for defensive guns that’s not really touched upon is their effective range. German pilots knew that the max distance for their cannons to effectively damage British bombers was MUCH greater than the respective ability of British defensive guns. As such, they could comfortably make an attack run and pull away before getting into a range that the guns could even do reasonable damage The .50 cal, on the other hand, was straight up originally developed as an Antiaircraft mounted weapon, and the ballistics are such that the rounds retain velocity at MUCH longer range than other weapons of comparable or lesser caliber. That means there is FAR less of a window for the Germans to line up a shot and break off before being literally disintegrated by the combined fire of several HUNDRED bomber turrets aggressively shooting at it

I always get a radio on the bottom if I have it upgraded, for the -20% night penalty. Its worked incredibly well for me in both singleplayer and multiplayer

The sub hunter is actually a very good design for US, Japan or even UK. a few squadrons of these can free up their fleet from the edge of their operational range and provide cover against subs in areas where the enemy operates naval bombers.

You keep saying that anything with high air attack and or cannons is "anti bomber" That is not true, it makes shooting anything down easier, not just bombers. It's more anti-plane in general, it's not like air attack acts like penetration for armour, it is simply air attack.

@TimoOoW123

Жыл бұрын

I agree on this one. I had this modern light air frame with 4 dual cannons, max engine and 3 armor plates. Late game I had a 1:60 ratio. For every fighter I lost, I destroyed about 60 of the enemy. Didn't matter who I was up against. Worked very well on both single and multiplayer.

@sacia4339

Жыл бұрын

​@@TimoOoW123I ask myself which is better, high attack with 4 cannons, or more speed with 1/2 cannons and 2 HMG?

@adskiyreanimator6757

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that confused me for a moment, like how more air attack can be bad in dogfights, but then i figured out he meant attack/agility penalty ratio

@TimoOoW123

Жыл бұрын

@@sacia4339 In my case, frankly enough stacking air attack worked best. At first I build a balanced model but I was losing a shit ton of fighters in those dogfights. So in one single player game I checked what the enemy had. Turns out they stacked air attack. So I also did that and absolutely demolished everything. Even when I was outnumbered. Sometimes these stat requirements seem a bit random in this game idk.

@power2ix605

Жыл бұрын

@@adskiyreanimator6757 yea

Every time you say "self sealing fuel tanks" I hear "self sealing stem bolts" from Star Trek :)

One thing I have noticed is if you play the US you can get REALLY good planes by 1942 due to its focus tree giving 3 100% research bonuses to light airframe because of how its tree worked pre BBA. So it used to be 1 for fighter 1 for nav bomber and 1 for CAS but now all go to the light airframe meaning if you go for those by the time war kicks off you will have the better standard air force than the axis or even other allies

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

The AI can't deploy the newer planes because the AI hasn't researched the Newer engines which its default. The AI will run out planes because it can't deploy them

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

Does the heavy fighter Focus go to the light aircraft tree?

@thekommunistkrusader3921

Жыл бұрын

@@tbeller80 I think it gives medium air frame but I would have to check but still as the US you can get fighters that are just below modern

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

@@thekommunistkrusader3921 I usually rush with the "CAS" Focus to get better fighters, but I haven't found a point to using mediums yet and skip right over the 'heavy fighter' Focus.

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

@@thekommunistkrusader3921 I double checked, it is a medium boost

the only problem I actually encountered was transport planes not doing anything in supply missions. They had supply, they had 100% mission effectiveness, complete air superiority, but just didn't deliver any supply to the air zone. Sometimes they would deliver 0.1 supply. It is so weird. They work fine on Japan and UK, but doesn't work on Germany.

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

I've stopped using them since their effectiveness has dropped so much. Even when I do, I only put one factory on them.

5:44 i invented this master piece in a cheat game as aussa, so it wasn’t to be taken seriously.

I'd like a new tank design video, to see what changed with all these updates.

TLDR Agility for Air Superiority Air Atack for Interception

Then there's me over here using an interwar heavy fighter with 4 quad heavy machine guns, armor, and self sealing tanks.

6:44 - 6 Prop engines actually have more thrust than 6 jet engines. I'd assume there's some real life reason for this which is why e.g. C-130s use props, but I don't know it. Strat bombers are basically stuck at 1 agility just from the bomb bays though, to get even a little agility you'd need to drop I think 2 bomb bays from a modern chassis. Also improved engines are +1 production cost per engine (before jets), I can't imagine why you would ever not take the best available engine. The extra speed will probably save more planes than extra you'd be able to build with worse engines.

Does speed make any difference in fighting situations (like tanks on the ground aswell) or is it just a parameter for the movement of units?

Bringing Agility back as the main stat for dogfighters makes sense.

I got a pilot training ad on this vid. Lol

Is there any good way to build CAS medium bomber? Medium Bombbay have such weak ground attack that it seems like a waste.

Why don't people use the dive breaks more on small CAS & small Naval bombers? They give both defense and accuracy for both naval and ground strikes. I have noticed that CAS especially do more applied damage(larger % of max damage) even going so far as almost doubling reported daily damage in some provinces.

Strategic bombers have a strat bomb cap of 100, including doctrine and other bonuses like strategic bombing, so its overkill to max bomb bays

@spindash64

8 ай бұрын

Do all stats (aside from speed/Cost/Thrust/Weight, obviously) cap at 100, or just some of them? Also, if that’s the case, how much Strat Bombing does a design need if one has fully completed the Mass Destruction Doctrine?

Which patch buffed agility and nerfed air attack? Or was it like a shadow fix? Cuz I'm looking thru all the recent patch notes and I don't see any mention of a agility/air attack balance change.

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

I think it was the first patch right after BBA came out.

That moment he talks about the production cost while his head is hiding it... come on man who does the editing....

All hail DAVE THE WISE! DAVE THE ALL KNOWING!

It's good to know that air attack matters less than before. I have still found canons to be super effective in dog fights but machine guns probably better? One thing I really want to test out is a patrol aircraft to help with naval bombing

@ianperry8557

Жыл бұрын

Ooo that’s a good idea! I wanna try that now, do a US game so you can get the full test in ocean and land across most theaters.

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

What it should be Cannons give Logistike bonus to Ground ATK besidess strong AA . Machine Guns should give Air superiority

Cannons give a Ground ATK bonus on Logi Strikes good for CAS . Tank Busters are better used on Tac Bombers . Air Superiority is broken . I can but a Cannon in the Primary slot to a Medium frame which gives it 1.25 ASP and then stack Bomb Locks(Correct term is Bomb racks) on it or 2 Med Bomb Bays so while I'm Strat or CAS bombing i get the static value of 1.25 ?? Ya thats a exploit

The Typhoon Mk.IIIb is just nearly perfectly historically accurate. It misses the ability to carry bombs on racks, and it also has Engine IIIs instead of Engine IVs, and I'd consider the Napier Sabre II H24 engines Engine IVs.

14:30 another I would do and this is more RP is give it some air defense ether the dual MG turrets (just to tell enemy planes to bugger off). or a dual machine gun on the front... or both. as I think naval bombers on naval strike mission will provide some of its attack in a air to air engagement while flying to and from there port strike missions. also dont remmber but the Dive gear does they provide naval attack or only cas attack? 15:25 Im goint to say depends on what nation you play if you play as Japan I can see naval airplanes been the main focus. because good luck finding airports. wait a secound the Typhoon MK2b is that a dib at the A-10 Thunderbolt II. also correct me if im wrong but the rockets are better then bomblocks if I recall just in cas so there is no real reason not to have it (minus port strike or something like that).

Why is there no droptanks on the CAS?

@sacia4339

Жыл бұрын

On any aircraft. Is range a joke?

The problem is with minors you either make a specific aircraft and focus what little industry you have for an aircraft for this specific thing or a streamlined plane (ex specialized HS 129 tank hunter maybe a night tactical bomber a heavy fighter not for anti bombers with cannons but high agility low attack just for escorting bomber or pre bba cas for everything a fighter meant for anything

Does range matter for carrier planes? If it doesn't then a rocket carrier plane might be good.

@Shuraigekisen

Жыл бұрын

If you only use your carriers in naval battles and not as a mobile airbase, range doesn't matter

@sacia4339

Жыл бұрын

And they are very useful as mobile airfields.

@roboparks

Жыл бұрын

no only if U use CAS off Carriers . It's just not worth it to use CAS off Carriers . Use Cheap Single engine CV_Nav Bombers speed does not matter so the cheapest engine. And CV_Fighters as interceptors with the fastest single engine you have researched to protect your ships from other NAV bombers

@prrrromotiongiven1075

Жыл бұрын

LMAO imagine this shit irl One slightly dodgy landing and you sink your own carrier

@Zack_Wester

Жыл бұрын

Im going to say yes because you can set the planes on diffrent mission and I think they will help out on mission on land when the fleet is nearby. so you get a boost from the navy fleet (the costal bombard mission probably make the most use of it). and the rocket carrior plane have such a short range im not sure it will help. also need to test but I got a sneaking syspision that naval vs naval combat does have a hidden set range/distance that is used for calculating stuff (faster planes gets first strike kind of deal) how fast naval find each other and that.

Carrier rocket naval bomber?

guys, please help, what is the best strategy for land based NAV's with naval patrol mission? use only this mission, or with naval strike also? and in combination with ships, carrier planes, other NAV's only with naval strike mission, subs, scout planes? ... all of these? also, now carrier fighters work? carrier CAS? .. thanks

@sacia4339

Жыл бұрын

Best Naval Patrol on a budget is a TAC with the boat module and a single torpedo. I like to use single engine aircrafts as NAVs because of their high Naval Targeting.

@georgesmith6218

Жыл бұрын

I heard advice to make super cheap cruiser with radar and double float planes for spotting enemy vessels. Set it to never engage and patrol whatever area you want to bomb.

@tbeller80

Жыл бұрын

@@sacia4339 this is just for spotting, not doing the bulk of the naval attacking, correct?

13:30 is literally a space plane from KSP

EVERYTHING WORKS AS LONG AS YOU HAVE ENOGUH THRUST MORE THRUST GIVE IT MORE THRUST

3:41 well guess what the most produced military aircraft is

Can ground based AAA hit Strat Bombers? I feel like that shouldn't be the way it works.

@FeedbackIRL

Жыл бұрын

Yes

I just had a thought: Does air defense effect AA air attack and if so can you put so much air defense that the plane becomes invincible to AA?

@wei270

Жыл бұрын

air defense doesn't seem to effect AA too much, even the most heavly armored strategic bomb is taking large losses to AA

@Madmuli

Жыл бұрын

*affect

@MrNicoJac

Жыл бұрын

Iirc, air defense _only_ helps against air attack. AA is unaffected. So going for high air defense actually only _boosts_ the enemy's AA effectiveness, since you lose more production per plane :')

I swear they keep changing the meta. Built a nice air force as facist America of 5k fighters with a good 2x cannon, 4 light machine, 4 heavy machine, defense turret. Got melted in 1942

@tgnm421

Жыл бұрын

5k fighters in 1942 is not enough, and do not use heavy fighters. do not divide your fighters into different zones, all must be in one place until the enemy fighters are destroyed. the best fighter design for this period is a small 1940 frame, 2 defenses and droptank or 3 defenses, 1 level 3 engine, 2 twin cannons and 1 heavy x4 machine gun

@novawinters9229

Жыл бұрын

@@tgnm421 Ah I see. Ultimately I had 8k small fighters with 4x light 4x heavy and 1 2x cannon with the light defense and drop tanks. 8k planes vs their 5.5k planes and the fights were 80 lost to 50 lost. Truly didn't know what I did wrong I usually dominate the air with this strategy. Mustangs too.

Oi, Editor! Why do we not get to see the stats of the plane shown at 17:53?? It seems like it's one of the more viable options, and yet we aren't shown the stats so we can compare it to the previous designs..... :(

Fun Fact: the bonus given by Fighter Escorts in the Strategic Destruction doctrine provides nothing. Question time: how is escorting done? Air superiority? As a side note the dev-blog about scout planes mentions they can track ships and divisions. It's old and I haven't yet scoured the updates to see, so does anyone know if this is still the case or if it was changed.

i think typhoon design was historical or close to that, so it makes no sense in da game :D

I just did a Bulgaria play through and rushed Air with their double 100%s I had T 4 lights by 1941. How ever I spent since 1939 working on it, roughly when I got T3s. Honestly I should have just stuck with T3s and used the slot for other techs. Most nations like Romina, Hungry and Greese have - time ahead for fighters. Romina getting -2 rather then -1 but greece gets a +100% before that one. With Hungry getting slots and mils on their way to the -1 year ahead penalty but have to get way more on their way there. So really any of those 4 stats can rush T4 lights around 1940-1941 how ever the price to build that spec is 100% not worth it because they can't afford it. They can sell the tech to the greater powers in muti player but it's best just sticking with T3 as those notions because you get them early, anyways. Easily 2 years before other nations. Not only is the Gap 2 to 3 higher then 3 to 4, everyone has less mils / planes 1938 compared to 1841. Making a larger impact to rush.

Bomb bays per industrial cost might be a good metric for bomber airplanes. When their is a near tie between two choices, airfield capacity can be a strong consideration. If you get twice as much bombing capacity per 100 airplanes, you are getting twice as much value from the airfield capacity that is dedicated to bomber airplanes, so there is some bias toward having more bomb bays per airplane. Here I use the term bomb bay in a very generic sense in which torpedo ability for example counts as a bomb bay on an airplane meant for inflicting naval damage. With fighter airplanes, any air attack weapon counts at full value up to the air defense value of the target. Beyond that point, overkill becomes increasingly likely, so as a good enough approximation, the mathematical 0.75 power can be applied to the overkill amount, for example 15 overkill air attack counting as 8 additional air attack and 30 overkill air attack counting as 13 additional air attack. If I have a fighter attacking a more well armed fighter and both sides have roughly 15 air defense, and I have 15 air attack and the other side has 15 more air attack than I have, at face value 30 air attack against 15 air attack sounds scary, but it's really only a roughly 3 to 2 air attack advantage of 23 to 15. In other words, a 2 to 1 firepower advantage in air combat between two otherwise equal airplanes often only translates to 3 to 2 aerial victory advantage. I am wondering whether the old all or nothing air attack system has become more like the ground combat system, meaning that fractional damage can happen in air to air combat. It might now be for example that 1/3 or 2/3 of a machine gun burst hits, rather than the old all or nothing airplane versus airplane combat system where either the entirety of a machine gun burst hits or else no damage was done whatsoever.

They should add pilots as a manpower pool. That would change the plane meta big time

@ThaatEpicKitten

Жыл бұрын

@@puttilepuffie it’s not in the game. There’s only manpower, not a pool for pilots.

@nookiedrivein6153

Жыл бұрын

I hope they don't end up being like sailors in EU4. It's hilarious how Paradox kept focusing on "add moooar sailors" ideas group and decisions, like you ever run out of those to begin with.

I like to setup the game in order to make it last longer so i can try modern tech. For example, as the SU i let the axis conquer UK in 41 and therefore annex most of the world.

I don't know why, but heavy fighter aircraft seems to work for me, when I am playing as the soviets, you sacrifce some tanks, but the planes absolutely shred the german airforce with heavy guns attached to them.

Bloody hell the meta change again? It only just 2 months ago that people support high air attack and now apparently agility is king again.

“This plane is too expensive” Me, with my 90 production cost Heavy fighters in a desperate bid for maximum airspace control: In my defense, the US needs to cover BIG chunks of airspace per airfield, and also has bonkers industrial capacity by the time war kicks off

The best fighter plane is 1 cannons 2 4xHeavy Machine guns 3rd engine, Radio Navigation, Sealing fuel, and Extra fuel tanks or Armor plates

I dunno how good my cas designs are, but when I make them I stack nearly all the ground attack cannons usually 1 level 2, and 2 level 1 cannons and then armor, self sealing, and then drop tanks for the range, my only problem is, is it good or not because after a ton of time playing this game and really only knowing the old plane system, I still have no idea what I am doing, I just see big ground attack number and then send them off to obliterate, I use them kinda like “screw it” where I am tired of invading the USSR because I don’t know really how to do colab governments

THe modern planes can be obtained in 1936 with italy making it even more broken

Interesting how plane development actually somewhat mirrored tank development (at least in philosophy, less so function) at least in this game, can’t say how it was irl. Everyone thinks that the best plane would be the strongest, but that’s not necessarily true, because this isn’t a plane-dueling game, it’s a war-eco sim. The most effective plane is one that can perform its role efficiently and at as low a cost to the user as possible. A super-heavy bomber or fighter wouldn’t work for the same reasons a super-heavy tank wouldn’t work. Yes, it could undoubtedly deal with any other singular model on the market, but only in a vacuum, a clean one v one with no external modifiers.

@CubeInspector

5 ай бұрын

That's how it worked IRL with tanks at least (I've never been a big plane or ship guy, I'm an army veteran raised as an Army brat so it was always tanks for me, so I don't know much about planes and ships in general) The US designed the Sherman to not necessarily be the best but rather something that could be churned out in massive numbers that did the minimum necessary to complete the job. So many were produced and the logistics train so good that a tank would be knocked out, and the crew would pick one up and ve able to get right back into operations.

Tech company that makes fighter better, will affect if you make the plane cas or fighter!

Real world today all fighters today have cannons ! we learned in the Korean war that our heavy machines had a hard time shooting down Russian Mig 15's F86 Sabres were later built with 4 20 Mm cannons replacing the 6 50 Caliber Heavy machines guns

Gotta love Dave contradictoing what he says. Around 3:50 he critizises the planes for stacking ground attack, which btw is the most cost effective way to get a lot of ground attack, because the bombing modules are cheap compared to other parts. Then at 5:05 he says that you should maximise cost effectiveness, thus fighting the critic he said earlier.

@SUPREMEdiver33

Жыл бұрын

Depends on the role of the aircraft. That's what he was saying

Japan starts the game with a naval bomber and bomb locks. First two air xp always go to removal

@sacia4339

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@thehaberdash

Жыл бұрын

@@sacia4339 wasted production keeping it

Tanks and Boats (on singleplayer) can be really varied in the template design and still have a good game. You can win on every nation, no challenges, with infantry only (singleplayer only!). But, if you fuck up a plane, your game is fked! We need saved templates at least for planes.

And another one

Small airframe, biggest engine, 2 twin cannons 50 kills a tick Done.

The thing is, if you play as italy, you can get Modern fighters by mid/late 1940, and while they are expensive, boy do they break the game HARD

If Air Attack does nothing then why do I absolutely annihilate the UK + France's Fighters as Germany when all I do is convert them to Dual Cannon 1s, 4 Heavy Machineguns (Or was it light?), and Self Sealing Fueltanks with Engine 2's? You'd think it'd be a close fight or maybe we'd lose if Air Attack wasn't absolute king. Instead I got a K/D of 9 or something crazy.

@FeedbackIRL

Жыл бұрын

Cos ai makes rubbish planes

@FatheredPuma81

Жыл бұрын

@@FeedbackIRL My bad I forgot the AI doesn't convert their old models. Also their designs aren't _that_ much worse I'm pretty sure.

I'm not sure what the point of making jet aircraft at all is. By the time you have researched and begun making them you've already won the game and if you are struggling as you say you'll never make enough of them to really make a difference. They come too late and cost so much there's no point in making them.

Why would you use small bomb bays instead of harpoints on the outside ? Also, why does nobody use airbrakes on cas... Gives 4 air defense and is cheap as fuck

air defense doesnt matter against aa. so cas air defense is whatever

Agility is not the best stat, Speed is. Cannons suck now because they add way more weight than MGs, not because the subtract agility. Agility is still the least important stat. 1. Speed 2. Air attack 3. Air defense/agility

@PikaPilot

Жыл бұрын

My proof is your own fighter design contest: Tommy's stupid turreted fighters won the contest because they added air attack without adding weight, despite subtracting agility

I dont know what cheats are you yousing to test out difrent twctics and units on batlefiled, could you test oud something for me ? What if you teak mediub plane chase and stufed it with armor, plane turets and cananons and bombs. You know, creating flying fortress for cas and being able to defend from firgthters

@Delucifus

4 ай бұрын

Late reply, but he is using console mods which are available in the game

But what is the best Kamikaze's template? I tried to make it cheap but shot down too easily by carrier fighters but making it too heavy defeats the purpose of Kamikaze.

20:00 min

cant see the stats cuz of your face

Hi, Im a fan of your channel and videos and recently started making videos myself. If you have any time to watch it I would love to hear your opinion and tips for improving my channel

12:00 I made this plane 1 month ago and posted that on dc as exploit but with -400 range but who cares? Why u didn't show that in video? And now u are showing almost the same plane posted few days ago but worse....

I'm king of tired of seeing all the late game designs. Most games are not going that far. I want to see 1936 / 1940 designs.