It is if your opponent is a main-air attacker
Check this thread: Unpopular opinion: interceptors are OP
Is it important to max out interceptors asap? Or can it wait until later?
Please log in to post a reply.
It is if your opponent is a main-air attacker
Check this thread: Unpopular opinion: interceptors are OP
Okay
Generally if you have air enemies yes, if not then itβs not too important.
I would say that interceptors are the single most important unit to keep at top levels at all time.
You simply never know when a new enemy will come about with a strong air force. If the enemy has stronger tanks or artillery than you, you can always retreat and regroup to try again. But if the enemy catches you off guard with a strong air force, you can often lose the war on the spot.
Like with any other specialized unit, you need to take your opponents into consideration. I like using interceptors but they only have a few uses. Primarily to shoot down enemy bombers, but they are also useful for armed reconnaissance and I also like grouping them with my bombers to extend their lifespan by absorbing damage from ground units. Just using them as a scout doesnβt require them to be at max level, depending on if your opponents are using AT or militia. But their range is tied to their level.
I generally build at least 10 at level one them skip level upgrade them, usually one to three, but sometimes Iβll taken them directly to level four if my starting opponents donβt appear to be using bombers.
Another thing to consider is if youβll switch to rocket fighters. There is no need to keep researching interceptors if you switch to rocket fighters.
I have to disagree here, on several levels:
1) Aircraft move fast. You might not necessarily know which nation will be your next opponent. All of a sudden a nation can conquer your neighbour with bombers and before you have time to react, a much stronger air force is knocking at the gates. It's always best to just have the interceptors ready in my opinion.
2) You're right that interceptors specialize in attacking aircraft, but you really underestimate how important this is. Often times interceptors are literally all that stand between victory and defeat because no other unit can properly do their job. They are specialized because their jobs are extremely important and they cannot fail at it... which means all the enemy has to do is be better than you with one specific (and rather cheap) unit to have control of the skies then dominate with bombers. All the more reason to keep them at top levels.
3) You seem concerned about interceptor range but conflictingly also seem to strongly consider the use of rocket fighters, which cannot support offensive operations very well. Top level rocket fighters only have 64% of the range of top level interceptors have, except for Pan-Asian interceptors whose range is even larger. An invading force will only be able to advance one or two provinces at a time before having to wait for new airstrip construction.
Disagree all you want to; we all have our own style.
I'm rarely surprised on a map with opponents conquering territory quickly. I've gotten pretty good at reading a map and player profiles. But I generally only play one game at a time so I can devote enough time to overthinking things.
I'm against mindlessly upgrading any unit to every level available. It's not like they're destroyers where you only have a handful of them and need them to see subs. I generally have a lot of interceptors and upgrading them is a major investment. I find it cost effective to skip a level fairly often. I think my last game I ended up with 20, I skip level upgraded them once from 1 to 4 then again from 4 to 5 before the game ended going into day 13. I quickly realized none of my early opponents were air players so didn't consider it a priority. I believe in research discipline. I try to keep a handful of well-rounded units leveled and in large quantity. Interceptors I almost always give priority to, but not always. I'd hardly say I underestimate their importance.
If you start building rocket fighters, do you really continue upgrading your interceptors? That would be a lot of resources devoted to air superiority. Yes, interceptors have better range, but is that worth pursuing both? Bombers are great, but I've seen a lot of good players skip them entirely. Just before the AWC started this year, we set up a practice game with another alliance to test the new format, our opponents skipped bombers entirely, so we stopped building interceptors once we realized this. Was that the wrong call in your opinion? Resources are just too important to keep upgrading and building something that isn't going to be a factor.
My point is no two games are alike. You have to look for what makes a map different and adjust. Doctrine plays a large role too, as does geography. Comintern is horrible for interceptors, if you don't go with rocket fighters, sure you probably need to keep them max level. Other doctrines that get earlier access to upgrades are different.
The original post said ASAP, I interpret that as meaning the very early game. If you don't have strong players around you, I think it's worth holding off upgrading them. Inactive players and AI don't use planes so you don't need them. My advice for most situations, build ten of them by day 3/4 and assess how much of a priority to give upgrading them. Also start researching the next level of interceptors once you have 10. That way you can upgrade if you need to, but can hold off if it doesnβt make sense.
1) I wouldn't consider 20 interceptors by Day 13 a large number unless all you play is Clash of Nations
2) Nah I agree, I'm generally against the use of any bomber that is not a naval bomber. I go hard with interceptor spams.
3) The problem with rocket fighters is when you go on the attack with ground forces, they can't get far before out-ranging the rocket fighters. Any smart player with bombers will see this and just hold their bombers in reserve until you outrun your air cover then pounce, meaning you'll have to constantly stop and start when waiting for airstrips before you get anywhere.
20 interceptor day 13 is too little
you need at least 30
We all have our own style. Like usual, I just wanted to finish the map and didn't want to delay the game in order to build extra interceptors. 20 is my minimum, but it was probably even overkill for that map. I had to build carriers for them all to cross the Pacific. The more planes you have, the more carriers you need to build. Again, I don't mindlessly stick to arbitrary build goals. I build what I need to win a map and that's it. I had a work trip that I needed to wrap the game up in time for, but I probably would have not chosen to extend the game anyway.TheZhukov wrote:
20 interceptor day 13 is too littleyou need at least 30
I mean in general lol
Please log in to post a reply.