Rocket fighters VS Interceptors

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

    • Rocket fighters VS Interceptors

      Do you prefer rocket fighters or interceptors 15
      1.  
        interceptors (14) 93%
      2.  
        rocket fighters (1) 7%
      Hello, Rocket fighters and interceptors share the same usage of taking down enemy airplanes ( escorting your own) . I would like to see which does the community prefer. Also, write down the reason to your choice.
    • Let me copy my reply to Rocket fighters unrealistic to explain why Ints seem far better to me:

      As Axis they (rocket fighters) are a good option, questionable as Allies or Comintern and suck in every possible way as Pan-Asian.

      Please note I'm talking of real "competitive play" between pro players, not just normal maps where every "joke strategy" like flying bombs or heavy tanks can work.

      You aren't factoring in that Interceptors research and production are necessary for your airforce early before rocket fighters become available. This means that the research costs of lv1-lv3 Interceptors should not be factored in, as we're talking of "whether or not to switch into rocket fighters".

      The cost of Interceptor lv4, lv5 and lv6 is 6,350 goods, 6,350 oil, 9,450 rare materials and 29,150 money.

      The cost of the aircraft factories isn't factored in as you already built them for bombers and air transfer anyway.
      You may need a couple more air factories but also keep in mind the short range of RF means you need way more airstrips for proper air transfer.

      The cost of flying bomb, rocket fighter lv1 and lv2 is 2,850 goods, 6,200 oil, 8,800 rare materials and 17,850 money.

      Before celebrating how cost-effective that is... you also need secret labs (and high level ones) which means you have to start building them quite a while before rocket fighter becomes available, holding your production and economy back.

      It wouldn't be wise to rely on rocket fighters only and assume it will work. When you're defending they're great, but the only reason someone's defending is they want to resist, counterattack and win. In competitive play, using rocket fighters for offensives is rare to see and almost always fails.

      Rocket fighters only have 300 range at level 2. Could it ever be easier to snipe the airport and destroy them all? Likely not. Keep in mind RFs cannot scout so you're blind to stealth attacks, unless you also bring your raiding units there to defend - when those could be sneaking around, destroying enemy economy, picking off reinforcements or keeping your enemy on the defensive.

      And if your airports really get sniped (raiding units, rockets or just a fast assault when you're offline does it with ease) you may end up losing the whole airforce, not just the rocket fighters. Interceptors have way more range so they will be fine there.
      This means that even if you switch into rocket fighters, you need Interceptors. In competitive play you can rely on only Interceptors, but can't rely on just RF, you need Ints still. Int scouting ability can also change games pretty often, and you can't land RFs on carriers, so you'd have no air superiority on water.

      The short RF range, the need of densely placed airports and upgrading airports to minimize the risk of snipes means you can get paratroop rushed. Rare strategy to see though...

      Aircraft is especially important on large fronts. Even if you're defending, but it's a large front, guess what. RFs only have 300 range compared to 500 on Ints. When a sneaky assault comes in, you need the RFs to be within 300km compared to 500km for the Interceptors, meaning you need to place RF wings way more densely than Int ones.

      The need to cover the front means you have to spread out the airforce a bit, often ending up with less than 10 fighters per army. As Interceptors lv6 are cheaper, they get an advantage there - unlike 10+-stack fights, there having more numbers gives you more health AND more damage.

      Considering rare material cost (as lots of airforce means you'll lack that) there will be 4 lv6 Interceptors per 3.3 lv2 rocket fighters.
      Now multiply the damage by the health (Allies doctrine used) 228*100 (Int) vs 188*105 (RF) and we find out the rocket fighters will lose. Now keep in mind those are lv6 Interceptors... in competitive play players will often have lv7.

      For lv7 it's 2.02 Interceptors per 1.9 RFs. That's 108*89=9612 (RF) against 151*65=9815 (Int).
      But this time I was using Axis, the doctrine which has RFs buffed, and still, the Ints ended up more cost-effective.

      To summarize:

      - RF are cost-ineffective when fighting below the army size limit, as health and damage multiplies, giving advantage to the more numerous army.

      - The shorter range makes them easy to snipe and useless for scouting, so you need Ints, especially for offensives (where you often run out of range as you can't manage to build new airports quickly enough to support a strike).

      - On large fronts, their smaller range means you need to place them more densely (you need more RFs than Ints to make a defence of the same strength).

      - RFs require secret labs, which is an extra cost that also needs to be paid earlier (as you need to upgrade them to produce RF quickly enough). Having to sacrifice the same amount of resources is worse if you have to do so earlier (inflation). Also, if you rely on airforce you need rare materials, and RFs cost a lot of that.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper
    • Some remarks:

      - I've never had level 7 interceptor as I usually finish a world at war in around 18 days when I play together with friends. Actually you will rarely see fully upgraded units in a game.
      - If you use rocket artillery and SP rocket artillery then you would already have leveled up secret labs so the additional cost isn't necessarily higher.
      - If you decide to go for rocket fighters then you should also use (SP) rocket artillery to make it cost effective.
      - As you don't need air factories to build rocket fighters you can continue to produce bombers. This means that you can produce more planes on a daily basis as all your labs and factories will be producing planes.
      - On small maps like 12p road to war and blitzkrieg or 22p clash of nations, the rocket fighter is a very good choice. There's no need for big naval operations where you need carriers and rocket fighters can't land on them.

      I've almost never used rocket fighters due to their smaller range but they are a viable option on smaller maps where there aren't large airforces and where they can completely wreck the air force of your opponent.

      There is no good or bad unit, it's just how and in which situation you use it or not.
      BMfox

      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!


      Dinosaurs died because they didn't evolve, luckily COW does. Let's embrace it instead of complaining about it.

      "It's only cold when you need petrol to get a tank out of the ice to depart": my bootcamp training sergeant.
    • BMfox wrote:

      - If you use rocket artillery and SP rocket artillery then you would already have leveled up secret labs so the additional cost isn't necessarily higher.
      Yes, but if you focus on airforce you need rare materials, not sure if rocket artillery is the best choice, especially if focusing on quick operations where it's too slow. I see the point though, it can get rid of AA and expose enemy stacks to bomber attacks.

      BMfox wrote:

      - As you don't need air factories to build rocket fighters you can continue to produce bombers. This means that you can produce more planes on a daily basis as all your labs and factories will be producing planes.
      If you haven't invested in other secret units though, it goes the other way, as secret labs cost the same, but you still need airstrips for air transfer (and more of them as RF have a lower range). Upgraded air factories are resistant to snipes. It's also not bad to build some lv1s at the front (quick to build) and that secures you against snipes, and could even be used for producing lower level planes. This works better for Ints as they have more range, so you need to eliminate all airports within a larger area to snipe them.
      You are right. That is just a sidenote.
      "In CoW, don't stamp on things before looking. Rakes are everywhere!"

      "Don't underestimate noobs; if they don't know what they're doing, how can you?"

      Hornetkeeper
    • Hornetkeeper wrote:

      If you haven't invested in other secret units though, it goes the other way, as secret labs cost the same, but you still need airstrips for air transfer (and more of them as RF have a lower range). Upgraded air factories are resistant to snipes. It's also not bad to build some lv1s at the front (quick to build) and that secures you against snipes, and could even be used for producing lower level planes. This works better for Ints as they have more range, so you need to eliminate all airports within a larger area to snipe them.
      Hence why I don't use rocket fighters. If they would have a larger range and land on a carrier it would be bye bye interceptor.
      BMfox

      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!


      Dinosaurs died because they didn't evolve, luckily COW does. Let's embrace it instead of complaining about it.

      "It's only cold when you need petrol to get a tank out of the ice to depart": my bootcamp training sergeant.