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

No

Rachellreist wrote:

No

Rot this guy I'm sick of him

This poll should only have one dissenting vote lol

I would have said yes but I had to agree with Claudio

NO ONE should be sent to Coventry. It is too cruel.

Fox-Company wrote:

I am going to have to slightly disagree, some doctrines allow for better Air Units and better ability, Allied gives farther range and faster upgrading, giving you less vaunerability time and allowing you to throw out higher level forces faster, goes with the less research cost, you are better off researching for less and get better units, where as Axis cost alot for everything, limiting their, albeit good units, to smaller numbers.

I think that Allied bombers are highly overrated. Their tactical bombers get +15% damage to light armour, whereas Axis tactical bombers will deal +15% damage to all units while having 15% more HP for only a slightly higher cost. The extra range of Allied tactical bombers is not useful in my opinion because interceptors cannot escort them that far; tactical bombers are only as good as their interceptor escorts!

Where it matters is units like attack bombers, which are cheap and do not require a lot of research. Axis attack bombers are so incredibly buffed that you hardly need more than 10 or 20 in a round.

Interceptors are also crucial. The Allies get early research while the Axis have the strongest individual interceptor in the game, for example. And the Comintern are always at a disadvantage with their interceptors being the weakest individuals while also having delayed research; it is possible for them to produce more and do all right but it is a challenge. And I do not need to even mention the superb Pan-Asian interceptors.

z00mz00m wrote:

This doesn't compute. When 7 stacks of 10 bombers patrol an army stack with 10 AA, then all 10 AA fire back against each stack of bombers. The fact that there are 7 stacks of bombers is irrelevant. Each combat is 10 bombers versus 10 AA, plus whatever HP comes from the units stacked with the AA.

Players who want to cover motorized stacks use SPAA, which is designed for this purpose. Or use army units that have solid AA defense, like Armored Cars or Mechanized Infantry.

This doesn't work against skilled opponents. They will have more powerful, faster, longer range interceptors. Those will shoot down your Comintern interceptors. Then you're back under AA for cover, minus all the resources and research slots wasted on the destroyed planes.

The more you build, the worse the outcome, as you're fighting from a position of weakness into the enemy's position of strength. It would be throwing Allied Medium Tanks against Axis Medium Tanks, or Pan Asian Cruisers against Comintern Cruisers. These are losing battles. Best to avoid them.

When the opponent is really good, and they have Allied or Pan Asian interceptors, the best thing to do as a Comintern player is not to build any planes. Use the resource savings on other units, and plan your strategy accordingly.

2) SP AA is too slow for armoured cars; it doesn't work. Armoured cars and mechanized infantry are far too weak to ever survive attack bombers or strong tactical bombers like those from the Allies or Axis. SP AA can also be ganged up on like in example 1)

3) If I don't have air superiority then obviously I don't rely on interceptor escorts. But in most games I play I do have air superiority because I don't build bombers, unlike most enemies.

4) Don't write off my ability to win an air war just because I use Comintern interceptors. All it means is I have to produce more, simple as. It's not a challenge when most players focus more on bombers. But I concede that it is possible to beat me in the air and that this eliminates my possibility of a speedy advance.

5) To avoid using interceptors is laughable. I can and do win air battles, you just need to build more... which is cheaper and possible The fact of the matter is that most players who engage in air battles are bomber-heavy. If an enemy builds 30 bombers and 30 interceptors, I can build more than 60 interceptors for the same price. If you care to see, I can actually show that on any given day the Comintern can spend the same resources on highest available interceptors as Pan-Asia on their respective highest level interceptor on that day, and the Comintern can match the raw firepower and HP.

6) That's nonsensical. You can't beat elite players without planes, especially not as the Comintern.

Of course it's possible to overwhelm any stack if you have the numbers to do so.

Send 10 x 10 medium tanks against 10 AT guns.

Send 10 x 10 cruisers against 10 subs.

That's not really the point, is it?

You can waste an entire air force killing AA guns.

The question is why bother?

It's not an effective use of resources.

Bottom line, you can win any fight with sufficient numbers.

As history's most famous Georgian used to say: "Quantity is a quality."

In the previous example, you could just build more AA.

If the enemy wants to trade expensive planes for cheap AA, let them.

z00mz00m wrote:

Of course it's possible to overwhelm any stack if you have the numbers to do so.

Send 10 x 10 medium tanks against 10 AT guns.

Send 10 x 10 cruisers against 10 subs.

That's not really the point, is it?

You can waste an entire air force killing AA guns.

The question is why bother?

It's not an effective use of resources.

Bottom line, you can win any fight with sufficient numbers.

As history's most famous Georgian used to say: "Quantity is a quality."

In the previous example, you could just build more AA.

If the enemy wants to trade expensive planes for cheap AA, let them.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

გაუმარჯოს

Fox-Company wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Doctrine is the least important in air battles. When you have inferior fighters, but you STILL manage to get that fatal blow in against refuelers or unprotected bombers, you can win the air battle even when you're technically at a disadvantage. Hiding your forces helps a lot; when your enemy doesn't expect you to have anything and then takes the full blow of an appearing fighter force, you can turn the tables drastically in one or two air battles. That's unlike land battles, where you need to be much more consistent to win. Air battles are all about that one blow, where your enemy least expects it, going in with all that you have.

I am going to have to slightly disagree, some doctrines allow for better Air Units and better ability, Allied gives farther range and faster upgrading, giving you less vaunerability time and allowing you to throw out higher level forces faster, goes with the less research cost, you are better off researching for less and get better units, where as Axis cost alot for everything, limiting their, albeit good units, to smaller numbers.

Klusey wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

I am going to have to slightly disagree, some doctrines allow for better Air Units and better ability, Allied gives farther range and faster upgrading, giving you less vaunerability time and allowing you to throw out higher level forces faster, goes with the less research cost, you are better off researching for less and get better units, where as Axis cost alot for everything, limiting their, albeit good units, to smaller numbers.

I disagree strongly with your specifics on doctrines in the skies but agree with your overall message that doctrine has an impact.

I think that Allied bombers are highly overrated. Their tactical bombers get +15% damage to light armour, whereas Axis tactical bombers will deal +15% damage to all units while having 15% more HP for only a slightly higher cost. The extra range of Allied tactical bombers is not useful in my opinion because interceptors cannot escort them that far; tactical bombers are only as good as their interceptor escorts!

Where it matters is units like attack bombers, which are cheap and do not require a lot of research. Axis attack bombers are so incredibly buffed that you hardly need more than 10 or 20 in a round.

Interceptors are also crucial. The Allies get early research while the Axis have the strongest individual interceptor in the game, for example. And the Comintern are always at a disadvantage with their interceptors being the weakest individuals while also having delayed research; it is possible for them to produce more and do all right but it is a challenge. And I do not need to even mention the superb Pan-Asian interceptors.

The bonuses can swing a war between opponents of similar skill, assuming nobody makes a big mistake.

Of course bonuses don't save your planes from being destroyed while refueling.

They also can't save your ships or ground units from being caught while you're sleeping.

So that's kind of a tangent, in my opinion

The point stands, that terrain, production, and power bonuses do steer you to build differently for each doctrine.

They don't decide everything, but ignoring them is also a mistake.

Like trying to compete head-on with Comintern against Pan Asian fighters.

It's not wise to plan a war on the assumption that you WILL catch the opponent while refueling.

That's just a bad idea.

I'm planning to use my strength against their weakness.

And if they give me an opportunity to kill them even faster... that's a bonus.

Just nuke ‘em. No really while it’s expensive and takes time I once managed to nuke a max level stack of 20 Allie’s strategic bombers. It was while they were refueling but still was a big thing. It took way less cost to get that nuke then 20 Max level strategic bombers which deleted a good few of my cities.

The last time I've seen a nuke was in the 1.0 engine.

Games are much faster now. Even a solo WaW map is over a week before level 1 nuclear bombers show up. And those aren't very effective. By the time a nuclear missile shows up, I've finished the NEXT game

z00mz00m wrote:

The last time I've seen a nuke was in the 1.0 engine.

Games are much faster now. Even a solo WaW map is over a week before level 1 nuclear bombers show up. And those aren't very effective. By the time a nuclear missile shows up, I've finished the NEXT game

Point is that if someone has the ability to get those bombers then you can get nukes as a good counter. Seriously most of my games last past day 15…

Not sure what to say to that. I'm tempted to ask what you're doing, and offer tips to win more efficiently, but maybe you'll be happier if you can play with nukes

z00mz00m wrote:

Not sure what to say to that. I'm tempted to ask what you're doing, and offer tips to win more efficiently, but maybe you'll be happier if you can play with nukes

z00mz00m wrote:

The bonuses can swing a war between opponents of similar skill, assuming nobody makes a big mistake.

Of course bonuses don't save your planes from being destroyed while refueling.

They also can't save your ships or ground units from being caught while you're sleeping.

So that's kind of a tangent, in my opinion

The point stands, that terrain, production, and power bonuses do steer you to build differently for each doctrine.

They don't decide everything, but ignoring them is also a mistake.

Like trying to compete head-on with Comintern against Pan Asian fighters.

It's not wise to plan a war on the assumption that you WILL catch the opponent while refueling.

That's just a bad idea.

I'm planning to use my strength against their weakness.

And if they give me an opportunity to kill them even faster... that's a bonus.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

z00mz00m wrote:

The bonuses can swing a war between opponents of similar skill, assuming nobody makes a big mistake.

Of course bonuses don't save your planes from being destroyed while refueling.

They also can't save your ships or ground units from being caught while you're sleeping.

So that's kind of a tangent, in my opinion

The point stands, that terrain, production, and power bonuses do steer you to build differently for each doctrine.

They don't decide everything, but ignoring them is also a mistake.

Like trying to compete head-on with Comintern against Pan Asian fighters.

It's not wise to plan a war on the assumption that you WILL catch the opponent while refueling.

That's just a bad idea.

I'm planning to use my strength against their weakness.

And if they give me an opportunity to kill them even faster... that's a bonus.

I'm not saying that doctrine is UNimportant; I'm saying it is the LEAST important in the three main branches. When you want to take out a land stack of 30 units, either your own army will suffer as well (when going in melee) or it will take a very long time (using arty). When you want to take out a 30 air stack, you just have to make one or two good moves.