Direct attack on (fuelled) enemy planes is a notoriously high-loss activity. Only to be used with extreme caution.
28 Aug 2017, 09:15
Not a bug, nor issue, but I don't like it
3 fighters lvl 3 vs 1 fighter lvl 1attack result:
25% of 3 fighters group morale/strength lost (was 100%, now it is 75%)
30% of 1 fighter morale/strength lost (was 100%, now it is 70%)
Fight vs AI (My Soviet vs Poland AI)
WAD? Really?
Better to be servant in heaven than a monarch in hell
... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
3 Replies
28 Aug 2017, 19:04
A direct attack on fully fueled enemy fighters usually results in disproportionate losses to the attacker. Direct attacks by fighters do very well, however, against unescorted tactical and strategic bombers. Against enemy fighters, if you are able to do so, you get better results from patrolling fighters vs. enemy fighters rather than direct attacks. Of course, having the advantage of numbers helps too.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Direct attack on (fuelled) enemy planes is a notoriously high-loss activity.
28 Aug 2017, 19:53
That doesn't sound normal. This is saying that a lvl 1 INT did 15 HP defensive damage to planes. That is 3.75 times it's reported air defense. I suppose it's conceivable that the variance can occasionally swings that far, but it seems unlikely. It is possible that there were patrols you didn't see.Khantix wrote:
3 fighters lvl 3 vs 1 fighter lvl 1attack result:25% of 3 fighters group morale/strength lost (was 100%, now it is 75%)
30% of 1 fighter morale/strength lost (was 100%, now it is 70%)
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
