Secret Master

blahmaster6k said: I'm not completely sure but if I remember correctly the value is somewhere around 112 air attack worth of AA

That's roughly 4 line AA or 1 support AA and 3 line AA with Tier 2 AA and 1941 AA techs. You can cut that down to 3 line AA or 1 support AA and 2 line AA with max AA techs.

That's basically something like 15-20 aircraft worth of production cost per division if you convert the cost of the AA guns to aircraft cost. I was thinking that maybe you could immunize the entire front this way instead of just panzer formations,... Read more

You missed one indicator the game needs.

If the PARA divisions are in bad supply, they won't drop despite being given the order. You'll see the arrow in motion, but nothing happens. The game never tells you its because the PARA are in bad supply.

This often comes up when you try to PARA from an airfield with tons of planes on it besides the transports.  

FocusedHope said: So as I understand detection, it's not symmetric. If UK had radar and France didn't (have either radar or other sources of detection), then UK's fighters would shoot France's NAVs but France's NAVs wouldn't shoot back at UK's fighters.

Yeah, after rereading your post, I realized what you were actually saying. My bad for not paying attention. And yeah, plenty of RADAR on both sides of the Channel.

(For ship detection as much as plane detection. The first test I ran, I forgot to set up the RADAR. The fleets just kept sailing the Chan... Read more

vermicious knid said: Have you tried basing the two planes on land and recreating the experiment? I'm betting the land-based CV NAV fires the guns.

Yes. There's no problem from land. I'm specifically looking at carrier fights. The planes seem to behave normally when on manually selected missions whether from land or carrier. i.e. telling the CV NAVs to naval strike a sea zone  

FocusedHope said: Did France actually have 50% detection in the English Channel?

I made sure to put detection there.

But for the record, in naval combats with carriers, fighters shooting at each other get plenty of kills. And I want you to note that the Fulmars are getting kills against the CV NAVs. Combat is happening. It's not like the planes just can't see each other. It's just that the CV NAVs don't seem to fire their guns.  

Synicus said: Does this mean that the cannon on the Zero does not work being the second module/machine guns first?

No. Adding extra guns just adds firepower. It seems like the problem only comes up when you have a non-fighter module in the first slot (torpedoes, radio guided bomb, etc.).  

bitmode said: As mentioned above, the selected mission should not stop the planes from dealing air damage. FWIW, non-BBA CV NAV do have air attack and I observe them dealing the expected air attack damage in a test battle.

I will do some more testing just to make sure I'm not screwing something up, but it's good to hear that I'm not taking crazy pills and missed something in an update.

But to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, this CV NAV...

{ "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous"... Read more

I've been fooling around with carrier aircraft again, and I wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.

1) When based on a carrier, an aircraft with the first module being a fighter module (HMGs or whatever), the plane is now a CV fighter and can only perform carrier fighter missions when in naval combat on carrier. Even if it has a second or third module with torpedoes, during naval combat on a carrier, it should only act like a fighter. It can't multi-role in naval combat and shoot down enemy planes and bomb ships.

2) When based on a carrier, an aircraft with the first module being a torpedo, the plane is now a CV NAV and can only perform carrier NAV missions when in naval combat on a carrier. It doesn't matter if you mount HMGs on the wing modules, the plane will only try to sink ships in naval combat.

3) When specifically ordered to perform missions away from the carrier, planes can perform whatever mi... Read more

marcelo r. r. said: A breakdown of nuke research in a large research tree would be a begin. With only 3 research to achiev full nuke power, any country could just do 3 steal blueprint against USA.

But since nuke production is tied to the presence of nuclear reactors, and since nuclear reactors are really expensive to build and take up factory slots, getting any kind of meaningful production of nuclear bombs is a bit more than just grabbing some blueprints.

When you get those techs also matters. Sure, if I get nuclear reactors in 1950, I'm clo... Read more

marcelo r. r. said: The latest patch changed accident losses variables for ??? another nerf for the sake of the nerf?

IF u guys don't know , the AI ping-pong bombing is still around, so we have to maintain some "permanent" air superiority missions in crucial zones, otherwise,(remembering also we don't have any alerts when a bombing starting), we have to permanent to keep eye on "indirect" signals of being bombed like construction qeue. Also when is too late, the bombing debuff on warscore.

Here a file to test it In Caribbean Sea,
USA keep trying to contest, i have to defend it becaus...

Read more

Cavalry said: Well if cheaper planes is CAS vs TAC then it is like that a long time.

It means also generally cheaper planes even if you are just using smaller air frames.

That plane isn't bad, but the armor module has no impact on whether it dies from AA guns. So, from the perspective of losses to AA guns, it's wasted weight and cost.

Now, most planes don't operate in a vacuum. You have to consider survivability from air threats as well as AA threats. But if I'm running a set up where my CAS aren't interacting with enemy fighters very oft... Read more

Umbosch said: The german generalstaff has say that was the biggest problem and why they lost. They can't move not one unit at day without attack from the sky

Yeah, I've read this, too.

For the fighting in France in 1944, the inability to move supplies or reinforcements by day without them getting bombed or strafed was a real problem.  

Reman said: At some point it got buffed so the '36 tech support AA gave almost the max 75% CAS damage reduction, and can shoot down planes by the dozens. It's completely absurd. The devs just... never bothered to look at it again for some reason.

Whether it was balanced badly before the air designer, I think now that aircraft costs are much higher and we can design planes with more armor, AA guns needs to be rebalanced in light of the changes we see in aircraft these days.

The balance causes ground attack design to favor cheaper planes (since you c... Read more

GeneralisimoAR said: lets say that you are outnumbered in air, and the nemy send tons of mission logistical strikes.

This is the biggest disadvantage to losing control of the skies. It's harder to keep your logistics alive without your own air power.

...

Read more

I'll go ahead and close this.  

marcelo r. r. said: All recon companies don't have speed, so they don't need speed bonus

They do, but since it's not listed normally, you can miss it.

As an example, I played a Soviet game recently with the intention of using modified BT-7s as light recon tanks in armored recon companies. But I forgot to modify them. I had T-34s with 12 kph speed and SU-85s with 12 kph speed, but my divisions were only moving at a base speed of 10.7 because that's what the BT-7 starts with. The tooltips didn't tell me why it was happening; I had to figure it out mys... Read more

blahmaster6k said: Honestly, considering that the second night vision tech is a 1946 tech, it hardly comes up in a normal game from my experience.

I've pushed those techs ahead of time as Italy when going all in on a GBP/special forces kind of thing.

I'll save everyone the trouble and post it myself:

 

Here's the logic of training air wings.

1) Rookies are terrible at air to air combat. Consider these two wings:

{ "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous": "Previous", "lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.", "lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow", "lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow", "lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen", "lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails", "lightbox_download": "Download", "lightbox_share": "Share", "lightbox_zoom": "Zoom", "lightbox_new_window": "New window", "lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar" }

... Read more

blahmaster6k said: True, but keep in mind that the other side also has the -50% night attack penalty. Meaning that during the night time, your divisions will still have a 25% firepower buff that the other side doesn't have.

I just want to remind everyone (and I know you know this, but others might not) that between GBP right and the night vision techs, you can completely eliminate the night fighting penalty.

... Read more

bitmode said: In my opinion, battles should actually be much faster.

This is something that's just baked into the design of the game. And it has odd results.

Most big naval battles in the period lasted 1 to 5 days at the most. Convoy battles were sometimes longer, but these also are of the "convoy attacked in multiple running battles" variety.

It's worth pointing out that when capital ships were involved, longer naval battles were problematic simply because they burned so much fuel when fighting. But we don't have to worry about th... Read more