Heavy fighters

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

    • Even though many countries anticipated their use and designed and built them before the war, heavy fighters weren't really succesful when put to the test of battle situation. Their dog fight performance was far inferior to single-engine fighters; during the battle of Britain, the Me-110's (heavy fighters) apparently even had to be escorted by Me-109's (light fighters). Most models were converted to other roles later in the war, notably night fighter (their bigger size and second crew member allowing on-board radar operation), fighter-bomber (geared towards battlefield support), and pathfinder/reconnaisance.

      I'm not sure if we should implement an ineffective aircraft category into the game, even though the gameplay opportunities would be interesting.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • That's another unit that could be added as "legacy", like Tankettes, Cavalry or Battlecruisers
      Legacy units, as I envision it, are units available to some countries at the beginning of some historical scenario which would at the same time give some countries a very early edge, but that edge would not last as the legacy units cannot be upgraded and have to be fully replaced.

      Of course, it should be pretty low in the to-do list.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Even though many countries anticipated their use and designed and built them before the war, heavy fighters weren't really succesful when put to the test of battle situation. Their dog fight performance was far inferior to single-engine fighters; during the battle of Britain, the Me-110's (heavy fighters) apparently even had to be escorted by Me-109's (light fighters). Most models were converted to other roles later in the war, notably night fighter (their bigger size and second crew member allowing on-board radar operation), fighter-bomber (geared towards battlefield support), and pathfinder/reconnaisance.

      I'm not sure if we should implement an ineffective aircraft category into the game, even though the gameplay opportunities would be interesting.
      I completely agree with you but the me 110 was effective when they added radar and made her a night fighter

    • Night fighters were meant for fighting strategic bombers; tactical operations needed daylight. But, since our implementation of the strategic bomber is kinda... erm... flawed? Do we really need a specific unit to fight it?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Night fighters were meant for fighting strategic bombers; tactical operations needed daylight. But, since our implementation of the strategic bomber is kinda... erm... flawed? Do we really need a specific unit to fight it?
      I dont trying to say se need a night fighter since the game Is not complex enought to add night/day cicles

      What I'm trying to say Is the game need a long range scort fighter to give strat and tac bombers some defence against interceptor.

      Bcuz this Is one of Main problems of bombers having More range than interceptor.
      I'm not into real life roles with this topic, but instead I'm into game balance.

      Now freezy say that the strat bombers Will be buffed (probably un feb) so there Is a chance of they being useful, but the lack of antiair defence Is still there.

      whowh wrote:

      Strategic bombers flawed???!??!??!? what do you mean. They are my most produced unit. I spam them when I want to take out SPAA and interceptors. why would anyone ever use a different unit for warfare?
      no whowh, right now strat bombers are not a good unit, every player on a competitive level know this. If you win with strat bombers, probably you have never fight AND win against players who doesn't sleep on a balance map
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:


      whowh wrote:

      Strategic bombers flawed???!??!??!? what do you mean. They are my most produced unit. I spam them when I want to take out SPAA and interceptors. why would anyone ever use a different unit for warfare?
      no whowh, right now strat bombers are not a good unit, every player on a competitive level know this. If you win with strat bombers, probably you have never fight AND win against players who doesn't sleep on a balance map
      Lol, I think somebody got his leg pulled)))
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • this is a good idea but if heavy-fighter exists, it is gonna be expansive and will make tactical bombers stronger and some players might even come with less use of normal fighters or not at all. This unit will probably have great impact on aerial warfare but still I would love to have heavy fighter in my air-force.

    • imperialtiger4 wrote:

      1. with the new interceptor stats my opinion is that a new air unit should be introduced it would be a heavy fighter with more hp with longer range also less damage over all but its stats would lean towards defense to escort bomber aircraft. Whats your guys thoughts?

      Well intercepors gain range, greater health, and are dealing more damage by every level up.
      I don't believe that unit will find it's purpose in game.
      Фарис Синановић, Суна

    • Agreed, we don't need more airplanes, there are plenty right now. I barely research half of them in a game.

      Too many armor units as well. I've never built a tank destroyer on purpose.

      And it would be cool to combine AA and motorized AA, so I can upgrade later in the game. Researching both it's impractical, too much time, too many resources.

    • Pine of England wrote:

      Never built a TD? You're missing out. Easily the best armoured vehicle.

      Can you elaborate?

      To me, it's an overpriced AT gun.
      1. Both are great at armor defense, terrible at everything else.
      2. Both are slow. Yeah, the TD is a bit faster, but not by enough.
      3. Both are hidden units, great at setting an ambush in forests and cities.

      Why pay more resources, especially oil, to research and build an ambush defender?
      Why burn oil every day on a unit that's sitting still waiting for a tank to stumble into it?

    • 1° TD had more HP.
      2° TD had heavy armor class Soo tanks in general do very low damage against them, in comparison with AT.
      3° even if deals more damage on defense their offensive damage against armor it's high enought to be a offensive unit if it's properly supported with anti infantry units.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"