Can I ask you guys for thoughts and opinions on the air force?

i can only speak for myself but i try to build evenly. that is pretty much for ground and air units, this also goes for their upgrades as well. eg,,, 10 level 1 tacts 10 level 1 attack and 10 level 1 interceptors then upgrade them all to level 2 before building more however each game is different and you mat need more of a certain type. as for your question are they over produced ? probably so but you have to have them. i have never played a game were they were not vital to getting a win

I've got to counter your claims here because what if I just build 30 interceptors for far cheaper than your 10 interceptors, 10 tactical bombers, and 10 attack bombers?

Plus I'll have two less units to research so I can dedicate that research towards my ground army, which you have not dedicated as much research or resources to.

You yourself admit that your bombers are vital in your strategy, so I believe it's safe to say that if I counter your air force for a cheaper price than you spend on your air force while dedicating more research to my ground army, I'll have a significant advantage on the ground.

Klusey wrote:

I've got to counter your claims here because what if I just build 30 interceptors for far cheaper than your 10 interceptors, 10 tactical bombers, and 10 attack bombers?

Plus I'll have two less units to research so I can dedicate that research towards my ground army, which you have not dedicated as much research or resources to.

You yourself admit that your bombers are vital in your strategy, so I believe it's safe to say that if I counter your air force for a cheaper price than you spend on your air force while dedicating more research to my ground army, I'll have a significant advantage on the ground.

It doesn't matter what other kind of crap the enemy has in the skies, just have more and higher levels of interceptors than them. You can wipe out their entire air force and, in doing so, gain air superiority.

However, you need to make sure your main stacks have AA defensive units in them; if you are asleep or AFK the enemy can use their bombers against them.

To be honest, I don't really use Air Force that much. I'm playing a game as Tibet, maybe I'll build up my airforce once I'm done making my medium tanks.

Air power is very situation dependent. On a map full of noobs and inactives, you don't need interceptors or AA, so why build them? Invest in units that end the map faster. On other maps, you need air power to keep the enemy from dispersing to go through and around your lines. Bombers feast on those tiny stacks.

Artillery is different. You always need it. The only debate is between gun and rocket arty, and towed versus self propelled. Because without arty, you have to fight everything in close combat, and that will chew up your units faster than you can build them.

Brando Dilla wrote:

I'll stick to what I've said in previous discussions on this topic: Your interceptors are your airforce.

It doesn't matter what other kind of crap the enemy has in the skies, just have more and higher levels of interceptors than them. You can wipe out their entire air force and, in doing so, gain air superiority.

However, you need to make sure your main stacks have AA defensive units in them; if you are asleep or AFK the enemy can use their bombers against them.

And yes, AA is very important!

z00mz00m wrote:

Air power is very situation dependent. On a map full of noobs and inactives, you don't need interceptors or AA, so why build them? Invest in units that end the map faster. On other maps, you need air power to keep the enemy from dispersing to go through and around your lines. Bombers feast on those tiny stacks.

Artillery is different. You always need it. The only debate is between gun and rocket arty, and towed versus self propelled. Because without arty, you have to fight everything in close combat, and that will chew up your units faster than you can build them.

I play a lot of Comintern where the SP rocket artillery is buffed for speed so I often use those to react to small, quick stacks. They can overwhelm any sort of ranged units the enemy may have and deal a lot of damage to light armour and unarmoured units, which are most of the units used to rush in small stacks.

Exactly. If you can scout, prevent the enemy from scouting, and stop penetrations, that gives you control of the battlefield. The enemy will be predictable, while you hold the element of surprise. This lets you prevail even with a smaller army.

I hate chasing incursions after the fact. My units end up running sideways and backwards half the time, instead of taking the fight to the enemy. Even if I can chase them down, this is costing time, and maybe more, if the enemy can take down valuable industry, air fields, and infrastructure. Bombers keep the enemy huddled in large stacks, moving slowly and predictably, offering plenty of time to exploit their weaknesses.

I usually go up to 50 upgraded ints (to cover all fronts)

a 10 stack of attacks

a 10 stack of tacs

these are for single units

and maybe 10-20 navs

i usually go heavy on ground aa so i don't usually waste that much time on planes

I would consider the airforce to be the hard-hitters in any case of combat.

As is the case with most ground units with the exception of AA and SPAA, the airforce bomber is a cost effective solution in destroying any free units that may roam about and particularly weak stacks. Although due to the low health of planes the large army stacks are not that 'economical' to be bombarded.

There can be cases of better efficiency in using high level bombers to monopolise against damage dealing of any kind. Bombers can easily brute force army stacks of given the chance.

Over-indulgence in bombers can and should be punished with interceptor deterrents.

These bomber / interceptor builds have their pros and cons, a player's psyche is the main factor which decides which of the either builds to adopt.

More high-level games may gravitate to interceptor/mixed-airforce builds. You may further read on the discourse in this forum.

ralltcat wrote:

i can only speak for myself but i try to build evenly. that is pretty much for ground and air units, this also goes for their upgrades as well. eg,,, 10 level 1 tacts 10 level 1 attack and 10 level 1 interceptors then upgrade them all to level 2 before building more however each game is different and you mat need more of a certain type. as for your question are they over produced ? probably so but you have to have them. i have never played a game were they were not vital to getting a win

P.S: I hate Air units but produce no fighters or AA

Fox-Company wrote:

P.S: I hate Air units but produce no fighters or AA

Karl von Krass wrote:

...

Karl von Krass wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

P.S: I hate Air units but produce no fighters or AA

I would state that in case you are against a player with high bomber ratio, you will have a higher chance of losing. How do you fare in those cases?

TheZhukov wrote:

I usually go up to 50 upgraded ints (to cover all fronts)

a 10 stack of attacks

a 10 stack of tacs

these are for single units

and maybe 10-20 navs

i usually go heavy on ground aa so i don't usually waste that much time on planes

Fox-Company wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Karl von Krass wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

I would win, i have before against heavily Air Oriented players, currently on a 8 game win streak.

Yea interceptors are crazy good, and important if you're playing anyone with a pulse. Interceptors almost always, naval bombers if I have a coastline to protect, and everything else is situational. I don't use tacs or attack bombers unless they're filling a specific hole in my land units, which is pretty rare (except heavy tank spam!), with the exception of using Allied tacs to make up for the poor mobility of Allied land units. I never use strats but I think they have their uses occasionally.

Yes! If you have interceptors you can even take out small blitzing stacks using overwhelming numbers of interceptors.

They let you scout out the battlefield, are quick to move around, win the air war, and are all-round amazing units

Klusey wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Karl von Krass wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

I would win, i have before against heavily Air Oriented players, currently on a 8 game win streak.

Then you're getting awful, awful lucky. I myself don't like building bombers but interceptors and anti-air are crucial. You'd definitely face more difficulty in World at War matches