Heavy Fighters

    • Heavy Fighters

      New

      A unit that's pretty notably underused (and probably rightfully so) is the Strategic Bomber. In the games I've played (20~ so far) I only saw it used once and just as a singular scout because of the range. Theoretically, and historically, the Strategic Bomber should be a powerful but expensive unit used to disrupt your enemies production and cripple him as you destroy his armies. This was used to great effect during WW2 by the Western Allies, German production was hampered significantly due to constant air raids. However, Strategic Bombers have one massive flaw: they have no escort.

      Strategic Bombers are very vulnerable to interceptors, as they should be. But as it is there is no way to help your Strategic Bombers fight back, you just have to suck it up and deal with the losses since they are often so far out of range of your own interceptors. Having just a handful of fighters dedicated to patrolling your cities completely neuters this kind of Strategic warfare. An easy and straightforward solution would be to just buff the bomber's stats so they don't die as easily, but this is kind of ahistorical and has the potential to break the balance the other way and make Strategic Bombers overpowered. My solution is to add a new aircraft type, the Heavy Fighter. Historically Heavy Fighters were used by every major combatant during WW2, and were a critical component to WW2 air warfare. Heavy Fighters had significantly more range and had more firepower, but were more expensive and less agile than typical single engine fighters.

      In-game, Heavy Fighters would have similar differences. They would cost more, take more time to make, have a little less attack/defense against airplanes, and require a lvl 2 airfield. To offset these costs, they would have significantly longer range (not as much as Strategic Bombers but similar), have better attack against infantry and tanks (not as much as Tactical Bombers, obviously), and have a bigger patrol circle. Overall I believe Heavy Fighters would fill an important niche within the Call of War air combat system.
    • New

      I agree, strats are almost never used so it may help...however, in real life their goal was to "destroy their production lines" but in this game, we don't want to do that, because that may be our future province. Overall, tacs are way better, but heavy fighters may be useful for some beginners.
    • New

      Boozo wrote:

      I agree, strats are almost never used so it may help...however, in real life their goal was to "destroy their production lines" but in this game, we don't want to do that, because that may be our future province.
      Not in the late game. When it's two superpower blocs just fighting it out it's usually better to try and wipe them as quick as possible. Early and usually mid game I agree though.
    • New

      Maybe heavy fighters should be a mix of Tac. Bombers, Interceptors and Strategic bombers. They should have Average but less air combat values than the interceptor, Average but less land attack values than the Tac. Bomber, and Average but less range than the Strategic bomber. A bit like the Cruiser.
      "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu

      - Leading officer of the Training Alliance
    • New

      Most writing refers to "heavy" fighters as those heavier, early war, twin engine varieties that were erroneously believed capable of smashing through enemy fighter screens with their sheer weight of firepower. Herman Goering was a huge proponent of the concept, aircraft like the Messerschmitt Bf-110 being developed to put it in practice. Although excelling at roles for which it was later adapted, as a low level fighter-bomber and as a radar equipped, nighttime interceptor, the Bf-110 fared poorly in the 'fighter destroyer' role for which it was intended. Pilots of more nimble single-engine fighters had little trouble out-maneuvering it, proving the 'heavy fighter' or 'fighter destroyer' concept to be flawed in practice. In the aircraft that did excel as a long range escort fighter, the comparatively feather weight P-51, the Rolls Royce Merlin and the late war development of the laminar flow wing were largely responsible. The light weight construction necessitated by such a range requirement, however, had its cost in durability and damage resilience, perhaps making a 'long range escort fighter' one with slightly reduced stats (pilot fatigue?) that would be placed under 'special research.'