With more control over the design of aircraft in BBA, I've had trouble discerning the advantages between Small and Medium frames for Naval and CAS missions. I believe agility has been deprioritized a bit in general in Air warfare but Small frames used to be more effective with CAS and Naval before.
For Naval attack missions..
I have read that Agility doesn't affect the damage received. In that case, we'd want max targeting and naval attack and defense such as armor plates. With that, a medium airframe while being slower should very much outperform a small, yet I haven't anecdotally seen that. How does speed affect the interaction of Naval AA and Naval missions for aircraft?
Now, I'm not factoring the build cost/attack ratio for this question, but rather implying I want coverage of a larger zone or assuming the range is enough. How was a small airframe more effective for Naval before and is it still?
For CAS..
How does this battle formula differ from Naval, or does it? Both are pretty much attacking relatively immobile objects which defend with AA. Again, how were small airframes more effective before? I'm asking about the interaction with the ground units, assuming they got past the interceptors for this case. It seems to be maximize defense for damage absorption and max ground attack would be best, implying a medium should again be best. This implying both are within range and not factoring build cost. Just for CAS to ground unit battle formula.
To summarize, I'm having trouble seeing how or if a Small airframe is ever better for Naval or CAS, since agility and speed once target is reached doesn't seem to matter. How does speed and agility factor into these mission, once past any interceptors.. I'm currently trying to rely on more Fighters for Air Superiority so I can send CAS and Naval to be uncontested, thinking that they don't need that agility or speed in that case. I'm just not finding it very effective, with uneventful Naval attack missions.
Thanks
For Naval attack missions..
I have read that Agility doesn't affect the damage received. In that case, we'd want max targeting and naval attack and defense such as armor plates. With that, a medium airframe while being slower should very much outperform a small, yet I haven't anecdotally seen that. How does speed affect the interaction of Naval AA and Naval missions for aircraft?
Now, I'm not factoring the build cost/attack ratio for this question, but rather implying I want coverage of a larger zone or assuming the range is enough. How was a small airframe more effective for Naval before and is it still?
For CAS..
How does this battle formula differ from Naval, or does it? Both are pretty much attacking relatively immobile objects which defend with AA. Again, how were small airframes more effective before? I'm asking about the interaction with the ground units, assuming they got past the interceptors for this case. It seems to be maximize defense for damage absorption and max ground attack would be best, implying a medium should again be best. This implying both are within range and not factoring build cost. Just for CAS to ground unit battle formula.
To summarize, I'm having trouble seeing how or if a Small airframe is ever better for Naval or CAS, since agility and speed once target is reached doesn't seem to matter. How does speed and agility factor into these mission, once past any interceptors.. I'm currently trying to rely on more Fighters for Air Superiority so I can send CAS and Naval to be uncontested, thinking that they don't need that agility or speed in that case. I'm just not finding it very effective, with uneventful Naval attack missions.
Thanks
Last edited:
