Fighter planes suggestions

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Fighter planes suggestions

      the game should be more realistic, like in historical records.
      I’ll just skip to the point.

      fighter planes, had different roles during the time line of ww2

      in the earlier point of war, planes will swoop down and start dropping bombs, dive bombing, or dropping torpedoes.
      However, as they r already naval bombers, I would not emphasise too much on that.
      However in the earlier point of the war, there were also planes made for dogfights instead of sinking ships.

      in the later part of war, 1945, p51 mustangs were used for strafing ground units, airfields, naval bases and Other buildings. They were multi use aircraft, Not only it was able to support ground troops by diving down and destroying troops, but also destroying factories.
      Thus, there should be a new unit for the mustang that does damage to buildings and ground troops.
      hi

    • good point raised. But no, all bombers in 1.0 cant dogfight.
      However, in ww2, a b29 could destroy many enemy aircraft b cause of its guns. It had a new feature: turret gun (apart from ball turret.)
      hi

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Nn gg: Typo error. First line: cant(replaces Can) ().

    • The US and UK are special cases because they did not have well defined tactical bombers for land operations, instead opting to equip their fighter aircraft with bombs and rockets. These aircraft were never (except maybe in very fringe cases) used to strategic bombing of factories; they could deliver their payload to small targets such as tanks very accurately but they could not carry nearly as many tons of bombs as B-17s, B-29s, Lancasters, or even 2 engined bombers. Other nations, such as Germany, the USSR, Italy, and France had defined aircraft strictly for the tactical support role, and all nations had maritime strike aircraft separate from their fighters. Even when fighter aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair, which could carry very powerful payloads, were introduced the American navy maintained dedicated dive & torpedo bombers such as the Avenger, Dauntless, and Helldiver.
      As to your point about B-29s, all bombers previous to that had turret guns other than just their ball turrets (which refers only to the bottom turret on B-17s and B-24s) which proved deadly to attacking fighters. The B-29's turret innovation was making them remote controlled. Even so, they could not 'dogfight', given their poor speed and maneuverability; any anti-aircraft damage from strategic bombers should be defensive. Even then, bombers without escorts were absolutely mauled by intercepting fighters. The most dangerous place to be in WW2 was a U-Boat, second most dangerous was an American sub, and third was in a USAAF 8th airforce bomber attacking Germany.

    • eruth wrote:

      The US and UK are special cases because they did not have well defined tactical bombers for land operations, instead opting to equip their fighter aircraft with bombs and rockets. These aircraft were never (except maybe in very fringe cases) used to strategic bombing of factories; they could deliver their payload to small targets such as tanks very accurately but they could not carry nearly as many tons of bombs as B-17s, B-29s, Lancasters, or even 2 engined bombers. Other nations, such as Germany, the USSR, Italy, and France had defined aircraft strictly for the tactical support role, and all nations had maritime strike aircraft separate from their fighters. Even when fighter aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair, which could carry very powerful payloads, were introduced the American navy maintained dedicated dive & torpedo bombers such as the Avenger, Dauntless, and Helldiver.
      As to your point about B-29s, all bombers previous to that had turret guns other than just their ball turrets (which refers only to the bottom turret on B-17s and B-24s) which proved deadly to attacking fighters. The B-29's turret innovation was making them remote controlled. Even so, they could not 'dogfight', given their poor speed and maneuverability; any anti-aircraft damage from strategic bombers should be defensive. Even then, bombers without escorts were absolutely mauled by intercepting fighters. The most dangerous place to be in WW2 was a U-Boat, second most dangerous was an American sub, and third was in a USAAF 8th airforce bomber attacking Germany.
      a b29 can’t dogfight. Yes.
      But, a b29 had fast autoreload guns
      hi

    • This is an area where historical realism should be balanced with game design. Keeping their strengths and weaknesses distinct encourages specialisation and forces people to produced a variety of units. Otherwise, you would see a single unit doing everything. Bombers already have some air attack / defence, it's enough in my opinion.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • Nn gg wrote:

      a b29 can’t dogfight. Yes.But, a b29 had fast autoreload guns
      Just because it has good defensive guns doesn't mean it should be given good AA stats. As I said, strat bombers having decent defensive damage is fine, but even so they will lose to a concerted group of fighters pretty much everytime. They definitely should not have good offensive damage vs aircraft because if a fighter doesn't want a B-29 to catch it, the B-29 will not catch it.

    • eruth wrote:

      Nn gg wrote:

      a b29 can’t dogfight. Yes.But, a b29 had fast autoreload guns
      Just because it has good defensive guns doesn't mean it should be given good AA stats. As I said, strat bombers having decent defensive damage is fine, but even so they will lose to a concerted group of fighters pretty much everytime. They definitely should not have good offensive damage vs aircraft because if a fighter doesn't want a B-29 to catch it, the B-29 will not catch it.
      B29 should have increased defence damage, that’s what I also want... in my mind I’m kinda thinking: WHERE DID THE P38 lighting GO?
      hi

    • Nn gg wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      Nn gg wrote:

      a b29 can’t dogfight. Yes.But, a b29 had fast autoreload guns
      Just because it has good defensive guns doesn't mean it should be given good AA stats. As I said, strat bombers having decent defensive damage is fine, but even so they will lose to a concerted group of fighters pretty much everytime. They definitely should not have good offensive damage vs aircraft because if a fighter doesn't want a B-29 to catch it, the B-29 will not catch it.
      B29 should have increased defence damage, that’s what I also want... in my mind I’m kinda thinking: WHERE DID THE P38 lighting GO?
      I don't know what the P-38 has to do with any of this. If you're referring to the fast that it does not appear in the Allied Tech-Tree, well, there were a lot of allied fighters but only so many slots in the tech tree.

    • The only things wrong with fighters is that they take ground to air damage on patrol.

      A squadron sent to provide air cover and maintain air superiority in a region does not attack random units and get shot down.

      At least make it an option. When I send 6 interceptors out on patrol, the default mode should be air cover, only.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The only things wrong with fighters is that they take ground to air damage on patrol.

      A squadron sent to provide air cover and maintain air superiority in a region does not attack random units and get shot down.

      At least make it an option. When I send 6 interceptors out on patrol, the default mode should be air cover, only.
      Even if the fighters don't attack the land units the AA would still shoot at them. It's easiest to just have one patrol mechanic and make players use micro to make it work.

    • eruth wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The only things wrong with fighters is that they take ground to air damage on patrol.

      A squadron sent to provide air cover and maintain air superiority in a region does not attack random units and get shot down.

      At least make it an option. When I send 6 interceptors out on patrol, the default mode should be air cover, only.
      Even if the fighters don't attack the land units the AA would still shoot at them. It's easiest to just have one patrol mechanic and make players use micro to make it work.

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.

    • Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      That looks good, but imagine if there was an AA gun on the ground. With the fighter going so close to the ground, how could the AA even miss ? So I think it's fine that planes take damage while on patrol. I'm sure ground units were given orders to shoot at enemy scout planes whenever possible.
      We're always looking for top players to play together and learn from. Apply to Tokugawa Bakufu ( alliance code : KIOTO ) if you are a like-minded individual and wish to improve your game.



      Whenever feasible, one should always try to eat the rude.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.
      That solution would require the implementation of a whole new mechanic, which seems unnecessary in a game this simple. The current patrol system forces you to plan ahead so that opponents don't shoot down your planes. It is not realistic that fighters would be on patrol for enemy bombers over enemy territory for exactly the reason that it exposes them to enemy AA and fighter interception (among other reasons), so asking for a whole system to make it easier to do that thing that was not historically done seems kind of silly.

      Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      Yes, fighters attacked land units. I acknowledged this. However, the complete combination of the tactical bomber and interceptor roles during the war was unique to the Americans and British; the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese all had distinct planes for each role. Not only does keeping fighters and tacs well separate reflect history it also makes sense from a game play & balance perspective.

    • eruth wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.
      That solution would require the implementation of a whole new mechanic, which seems unnecessary in a game this simple. The current patrol system forces you to plan ahead so that opponents don't shoot down your planes. It is not realistic that fighters would be on patrol for enemy bombers over enemy territory for exactly the reason that it exposes them to enemy AA and fighter interception (among other reasons), so asking for a whole system to make it easier to do that thing that was not historically done seems kind of silly.

      Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      Yes, fighters attacked land units. I acknowledged this. However, the complete combination of the tactical bomber and interceptor roles during the war was unique to the Americans and British; the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese all had distinct planes for each role. Not only does keeping fighters and tacs well separate reflect history it also makes sense from a game play & balance perspective.
      fighters attacked ground units, thus they should have increased damage
      hi

    • Nn gg wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.
      That solution would require the implementation of a whole new mechanic, which seems unnecessary in a game this simple. The current patrol system forces you to plan ahead so that opponents don't shoot down your planes. It is not realistic that fighters would be on patrol for enemy bombers over enemy territory for exactly the reason that it exposes them to enemy AA and fighter interception (among other reasons), so asking for a whole system to make it easier to do that thing that was not historically done seems kind of silly.

      Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      Yes, fighters attacked land units. I acknowledged this. However, the complete combination of the tactical bomber and interceptor roles during the war was unique to the Americans and British; the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese all had distinct planes for each role. Not only does keeping fighters and tacs well separate reflect history it also makes sense from a game play & balance perspective.
      fighters attacked ground units, thus they should have increased damage
      As I said, they are separate for game balance purposes. If fighters were any good at attacking surface units, even if not as good as Tacs, it would be too easy to win by just spamming fighters. Tacs and Fighters need to be kept well seperate.

    • eruth wrote:

      Nn gg wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.
      That solution would require the implementation of a whole new mechanic, which seems unnecessary in a game this simple. The current patrol system forces you to plan ahead so that opponents don't shoot down your planes. It is not realistic that fighters would be on patrol for enemy bombers over enemy territory for exactly the reason that it exposes them to enemy AA and fighter interception (among other reasons), so asking for a whole system to make it easier to do that thing that was not historically done seems kind of silly.

      Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      Yes, fighters attacked land units. I acknowledged this. However, the complete combination of the tactical bomber and interceptor roles during the war was unique to the Americans and British; the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese all had distinct planes for each role. Not only does keeping fighters and tacs well separate reflect history it also makes sense from a game play & balance perspective.
      fighters attacked ground units, thus they should have increased damage
      As I said, they are separate for game balance purposes. If fighters were any good at attacking surface units, even if not as good as Tacs, it would be too easy to win by just spamming fighters. Tacs and Fighters need to be kept well seperate.
      spamming fighters is what America also did in ww2, but they also used bombers(strategic)... they might have used b18 bolos for anti sub and transport, but most were destroyed in Preal harbour
      hi

    • eruth wrote:

      Nn gg wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      z00mz00m wrote:

      The answer should not be "use micro". That's what computers are for. To "do the micro". I want to tell my fighters "fly at high altitude and shoot down any bombers that enter your zone of control". Those are my instructions. I want the game to make those instructions easy to implement, without me tapping on things every 14 minutes.
      That solution would require the implementation of a whole new mechanic, which seems unnecessary in a game this simple. The current patrol system forces you to plan ahead so that opponents don't shoot down your planes. It is not realistic that fighters would be on patrol for enemy bombers over enemy territory for exactly the reason that it exposes them to enemy AA and fighter interception (among other reasons), so asking for a whole system to make it easier to do that thing that was not historically done seems kind of silly.

      Nn gg wrote:

      Giovanni_Rose wrote:

      Are you suggesting that the game merges the roles on Interceptors and Naval Bombers, and also merging Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers?
      here’s proof of p51 strafing ground stuffyoutube.com/watch?v=AXofWKmBf58
      Yes, fighters attacked land units. I acknowledged this. However, the complete combination of the tactical bomber and interceptor roles during the war was unique to the Americans and British; the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese all had distinct planes for each role. Not only does keeping fighters and tacs well separate reflect history it also makes sense from a game play & balance perspective.
      fighters attacked ground units, thus they should have increased damage
      As I said, they are separate for game balance purposes. If fighters were any good at attacking surface units, even if not as good as Tacs, it would be too easy to win by just spamming fighters. Tacs and Fighters need to be kept well seperate.
      in addition, Napalm bombs were used to boost fighters land combat Missions.
      Images

      • 0DB880B8-2E97-451E-9FAD-45860CB57C26.jpeg

        469.74 kB, 1,037×675, viewed 0 times
      hi