This is using Axis doctrine so numbers might be slightly different (although since hp% and damage% are increase by same amount so it shouldn't matter?
A lv 4 strategic bomber has 75 HP and 5.8 attack vs planes
A lv 3 interceptor has 29 HP and 11.5 attack.
75/11.5 = 6.5 (round up as it would require an extra attack)
29/5.8 = 5.
Interceptors have a bit better ratio on their defense, so it's possible that they'd win if they're just patrolling around each other, but the fact that this is even close is kinda crazy. Either strategic bombers have way too much hp and damage or interceptors way to little hp. Realistically this would not be a close battle between these 2 units irl (or at least I don't believe so), and in general feels bad for game balance.
Please log in to post a reply.
Get back in the basement, little one.Scipio Manbini wrote:
This is what happens when a group of extremists lives inside their own protected bubble so long they forgot they are extremists and start assuming anyone not exactly like them is some other form.Carking the 6th wrote:
Glory to the Soviet Armed Forces!Glory to the Soviet Union!
Glory to the Workers!
Glory to the People!
Glory to the Communist Dream!
Well, yeah strategic bombers have a bit too much hp. Reduce it a bit but not too much bro
Yeah I agree. But still I wish some hp was cut off. Indeed, the strategic bombers like the Me 264 even had literally 20mm cannons for the gunners.Danieliyoverde123 wrote:
strategic bomber cost signifatly more than a interceptor, also interceptor lvls come earlier.Irl american heavy bombers such b17 or b24 were heavily armored with machine guns through all directions, if one fighter fight against a bomber could surely be take down if the pilot were not disciplined
Please log in to post a reply.
