Are interceptors akin to bomber destroyers/heavy fighters

[BaronNoir]

In WW2, there was a kind of fighter known as ''heavy fighter'', a fighter (two engined, usually) with heavy weaponry (or radar, for night fighting) specifically built to destroy bombers. Heavy fighters tended to be pretty vulnerable to fighters. (To take a IRL example, Luftwaffe bomber destroyers were almost completely useless against P-51, as their heavy canons did not worked very well against nimbe targets).

My question is this : to engage ''bombers'', interceptors are better. But is this true that Multirole Fighters win against Interceptors one on one ? (that was true in HOI2, and it would have been true in WW2 too)

[playerguy11]

In hoi2 fighters did more damage to org and ints did more damage to strenght.

From what I have observed, in this game INTs are superior on air to air combat, assuming the tech level is on par. But lately I research light aircraft weapon ahead and use combo of both.

IRL, some INTs had characteristics which made them also MT Fighters, one of those was air cooled engine (FW-190) for obvious reasons, like AAA. So when I loaded the game for the first time I was a little surprised to find that one category of planes had lower air attack with stronger frame.

Cheers

[john heidle]

In '3' int beat MR and MR beat bombers. Air attack is much higher than air defense across the board, so generally the unit with the higher air attack will win. Main reason in game to build MR fighters is their increased range. MR can also be used in a ground attack role so that the unit builds up more experience which results in a better overall fighting capability.

Read the forum and you will see in the thread titles some discussion about the pros and cons of escorting bombers.

Main thing to be aware of is to use smaller air groupings due to the stacking penalty of 10% more for each additional unit, so a size 3 air formation would give a 20% stacking penalty. 3 is about the size that most players use for interceptors.

[Secret Master]

Both MR and INTs will hurt bombers. INTs are better, but MRs have better range. This means that you have to make aircraft choices based on airfield density as well as air-to-air performance.

In some theaters, MRs win simply because they can actually reach bombers running any mission. On the other hand, it's best to defend France and the UK with INTs, since there are plenty of airfields that give plenty of range.

INTs should beat MRs in a straight fight, but INTs suck at anything else. MRs have marginal ground attack capability, so if you trounce the enemy in the air war, you can divert MRs to supporting ground operations, whereas INTs get to sit around and do nothing.

I usually prefer MRs on the Eastern Front and in Asia.