They are much better at killing Strats than Light Fighters, IF the Strats are unescorted. If they can catch any same year or earlier bomber they will knock them down, esp if the Heavy Fighters are up-gunned. Heavy Fighters have 2 good uses currently in vanilla. But then you have to figure the cost of production of Heavy Fighters and decide if they are worth it depending upon your IC count. Iirc 2x1 they come close to breaking even depending upon what is boosted and what year tech each is. They are a losing proposition vs light fighters 1x1. They really explain how air combat currently works. Those threads really need to be combined and stickied somewhere, or just linked to in wiki. He and others did a lot of testing and it was discussed over 2 threads iirc last year. And when you factor in saving air XP to boost the fighter the moment it's researched, you end up with new planes that render previous models obsolete almost over night.Ĭlick to Master is spot on regarding heavy Fighters. The difference between a 1944 light fighter and a 1940 light fighter is substantial. Something else to consider: since base stats are important and agility and speed bonuses modify them, it means that higher tier aircraft are much better than lower tier aircraft. When detection is low, you may see no difference between better fighters and worse fighters. So, even if you want to plan a bomber defense of Europe, you still probably want light fighters rather than heavy fighters.Īnother thing that most new players miss: You can't shoot down planes you can't see. Furthermore, light fighters with gun upgrades do just fine against STRs. However, if the bombers are escorted by light fighters, the heavy fighters perform poorly. It's also worth stating that technically, heavy fighters should be better at shooting down STRs. Properly designed light fighters, with the designer and doctrines, beat heavy fighters hands down in any dogfight. It's worth stating here that because of how agility and speed work, and because light fighters have more sources of bonus agility (doctrines, designers) than heavy fighters, heavy fighters tend to suck at air to air combat. In some cases, though, adding +1 to guns first, then adding a bunch of engine upgrades, is slightly more efficient. When air XP is limited, a lot of players will keep reliability up by just boosting engines, adding guns later. Guns reduce reliability, while engine upgrades do not. So, what a lot of players do is grab +5 engine first, but then start putting guns on their planes. This means that increasing the guns on a fighter, despite the agility and speed reduction, is still an improvement. Since agility and speed bonuses modify stats like air defense and air attack, you still need a good base air attack. However, don't fall into the trap of thinking that guns don't matter. This is why engines are important on fighters: Engine upgrades boost both speed and agility. It also means that there are plenty of bombers that have bad agility but decent speed. This means that higher speed always matters. Boosting agility even higher does nothing to help FW-190s shoot down B-29s.īonuses from speed, as far as I know, are never capped. STRs and TACs have such poor agility that most fighters cap out their agility against them.
In fighter versus fighter combat, you rarely see this (unless you have Mustangs fighting WWI biplanes), but against bombers it matters. This means that at a certain point, higher agility means nothing. If the opposing plane has an agility of 75, the 70 agility plane gets a penalty.Īgility bonuses are capped at 30%. If the opposing plan has an agility of 65, the 70 agility plane gets a bonus to air attack and defense. It only matters when compared to the agility on another plane. An agility of 70 doesn't mean anything by itself. The wiki has a ton of information on it here: Īgility and speed both matter, but they are modifiers on air attack and air defense. Folks, we should keep in mind that aircraft stats are all important, but they are complicated.
0 kommentar(er)
