Secret Master

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

blahmaster6k said: And I think I was one of the first people to discover that multirole strategy so you don't have to inform me about it

I really should have tagged the OP as well, since I know that you know that I know that you know.... Well, you get the point.
 

blahmaster6k said: In enemy air superiority zones, you should not be using CAS at all. It will simply be interrupted and not carry out its missions. This is why you use fighters only unless you have at least yellow, preferably green air.

That's the optimum path against a human opponent, certainly.

But I'll be honest: one of the ways I scam the AI is to run something akin to this set up.

Run Battlefield Support as your doctrine. And build multi-role planes like this:

... Read more

marcelo r. r. said: I can't believe even in real life someone in CONTROL of SUEZ will blow up to cut itself from india ocean.

Pfft. That's amateur hour.

I've seen AI Romania blow the Suez in an MP game with humans on majors because of how weird occupation come out with exp. forces and so on.

"Smoke'em if you got'em. Our modders have to go into the save game file and fix things before we can continue our epic battle for Egypt."

It reminds me of a Monty Python skit where the Royal Army brigadier gets angry with the Axis po... Read more

IITonicII said: I tried logistical strikes but it doesn't seem to change anything.

I find this odd.

I recently ran a game and wiped out enemy logistics without too much effort.

A few things to consider when bombing logistics.

1) Did you bomb them for more than a week? It takes time to have impact thanks to supply grace and fuel stockpiles on the front.

2) Do you actually control the skies? If the bombers aren't getting through, then it doesn't matter what mission they are running.

3) Did you have enough pl... Read more

Telenil said: How does it play out in multiplayer? @Secret Master ? @Axe99 ?

Dunno. I've been playing Vic3 for the past month.

So, my dreadn... Read more