Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 9 - Vacation and Air tech

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hearts of Iron IV 45598 Bug Reports 15256 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
I understand the distinction between bombers and fighters in the medium airframe tree, but what distinguishes the three branches of the light airframe tree? And can medium and heavy airframes never get carrier capability? Can something like the Mustang get ground attack capability? It only has an air attack rating in the screen shot. Do heavier airframes have an "armor" rating? Are the names going to be rationalized? Some of the models have their numbers and names on the tech tree, some just have the names, and a few (B-17, XB-28) just have numbers. And if the XB-28 were to be mass produced, wouldn't it lose the XB designation?
 
podcat said:
you are free to put any planes that are capable on your carriers and thereby configure their capabilities for different types of missions.
Click to expand...

What determines a "capable" plane? Is it (again) just a matter of unlocking "carrier capability" for a particular airframe and designing/building a model using that option? I assume that there's restrictions on which airframes can use that option?

Joe32320 said:
How do Nav bombers fit into this system, can you upgrade a medium/heavy airframe to specifically be good at sea attack?
Click to expand...

I imagine that it will work much like the tank tree offshoots, where you can derive tank destroyers or sp-art from a base model.
 
It would be nice if the things using field experience were carried over model to model as you upgraded just with a 50% reduction or something. THat way if you spent field experience upgrading reliability to level 6, the next plane up would have 3. This would represent the commonality of innovations like engines and self sealing fuel tanks.

That said, I feel like there needs to be one more year in the middle or a split of the 1940 row into 1939 and 1941.
 
Gre said:
I understand the distinction between bombers and fighters in the medium airframe tree, but what distinguishes the three branches of the light airframe tree? And can medium and heavy airframes never get carrier capability? Can something like the Mustang get ground attack capability? It only has an air attack rating in the screen shot. Do heavier airframes have an "armor" rating? Are the names going to be rationalized? Some of the models have their numbers and names on the tech tree, some just have the names, and a few (B-17, XB-28) just have numbers. And if the XB-28 were to be mass produced, wouldn't it lose the XB designation?
Click to expand...

Guys, the light airframe tree is really clear.

The three columns are

Torpedo bombers Dive Bombers Fighters
 
I see that with these exp points I am going to be able to create ridiculously OP planes, tanks and ships. No one will be able to stop the Luxembourgian military might.
 
Magyar1988 said:
I see that with these exp points I am going to be able to create ridiculously OP planes, tanks and ships. No one will be able to stop the Luxembourgian military might.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are joking, but how exactly do you suggest that Luxemburg could gather EXP enough to create that military might?
 
I don't really like how there is a Canberra in the US tree. Either it's just a temporary placeholder, you're reducing the importance of license built vehicles (the B-57 was a big deal) or you just haven't done too much research into early American jet bombers.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly how I wanted airplanes to work! I always wanted to have different variants of the same units, and I even wrote a thread asking for this for East vs West. Especially when playing big nations that have to face all kinds of different challenges on different fronts, it'll be incredibly useful to be able to have, for example, both short-range and long-range fighters :) .
 
So I will be able to put BF-109's and P-51 Mustangs on Air Craft Carriers? What would be the advantage and disadvantage to this? Obvious one advantage would be Air Superiority. II'm sure a BF-109 would easily take out a CAG.
 
perujuan said:
So I will be able to put BF-109's and P-51 Mustangs on Air Craft Carriers? What would be the advantage and disadvantage to this? Obvious one advantage would be Air Superiority. II'm sure a BF-109 would easily take out a CAG.
Click to expand...
In that case, the Bf-109 would essentially be a CAG (probably with modified stats due to the alterations), and would typically be facing CAG versions of Allied fighters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back