Air force vs Army, how to invest your resources?

[Denkt]

Given that military factories are used both to build the equipment your army need as well as building the aircrafts your airforce need, your airforce and army is in direct competition with eachother in terms of resources as each factory that build aircrafts could be used to build army equipment and vice versa.

A strong airforce can halt the enemy army, making it easy to encircle and thus minimize your own casulties. Air force can also be used in a more direct offensive role and destroy enemy factories. Not only that but it can also play a key role at naval engagements.

However without a strong army your country is likely to face defeat and be annexed, but an army without an airforce will likely not do well and take huge casulties. You will also have alot of trouble to defend your factories, even the strongest army can not defend its factories from enemy aircrafts. An army can not really do to much against a navy which can be a huge deal.

It will cost alot to build up an airforce as aircrafts are extreamly expensive in HOI4, a fighter cost about as much as a heavy tank.

 

[Axe99]

There's also the competition between the two for manpower - it will very interesting playing around finding out what works and what doesn't . I suspect the best answer will be a relatively balanced approach for most powers, but for a nation like the UK (which has to secure the seas around it, and might want to project power using strategic bombing) or Japan, a greater focus on the air force might be appropriate.

 

[ithillid]

This is likely something where it really depends on what nation you play. If I am playing a country with natural defenses, like the US or UK I can afford to spend more resources towards aircraft, because my first line of defense is the ability to stand off foes using oceans. On the other hand, France is going to have to avoid investing in airpower too much, probably nothing more than lots of fighter/interceptor platforms while investing in their army overwhelmingly. Because they have to stand off that big hulking behemoth called Germany.

 

[BigBobBear]

my aim is to have a massive airforce as america and use that to soften up targets before moving in with motorized, the same plan would probably not work for smaller countries so as the other guys said depends on what country your playing relaly

 

[ithillid]

the same plan would probably not work for smaller countries so as the other guys said depends on what country your playing relaly

I would actually point to the issue being land borders. Given, most smaller nations are not going to be in a position to do large scale air warfare, because they are mostly stuck with land borders. On the other hand, you have the USSR and China, both relatively large, which are not likely to do massive investments in air power.

 

[BigBobBear]

I would actually point to the issue being land borders. Given, most smaller nations are not going to be in a position to do large scale air warfare, because they are mostly stuck with land borders. On the other hand, you have the USSR and China, both relatively large, which are not likely to do massive investments in air power.

because they are large it depends on the persons playstyle, as any country i like to bomb out the area before moving in yet some players just like to just mount massive assults

 

[Nicolas I]

Air force also can help your navy if you operate near coasts or island with airbases. Not to mention fleet based planes.

 

[KalZakath]

Game wise, it seems as though if you have air superiority in a region, there are a ton of benefits. One thing that Da9l has talked about in every WWW is building fighters to gain some air superiority. I can see a balance between air force and army to start - but concentrating heavily on the fighters in the beginning, changing over to the bombers only when I know I can control the skies.

As a minor, though, it's pretty clear that it's going to be heavy on the equipment and vehicles to start.

 

[Denkt]

However even smal nations have invested in an airforce historically.

The game give significant bonuses to a defending airforce such as radar and good coverage. With a good doctrine and investment a minor nation may be able to keep a major nation from dominating the skies.

Even a minor country can probably build up a airforce that numbers a few thousand aircrafts which may be enough.

 

[JerkyJerry]

So many good points in this thread!
Sometimes what it takes for me to decide is if I want to spend dozens of hours and millions of clicks operating the air force OR am I just inclined to either play a country where the air force is not as important or it will just be time for some armor smash!
However with the air force fixed in 4 I'm more apt to fly the friendly skies more often as I did not do too much airforce stuff in 3

 

[Orlunu]

Navy \o/

Military factories are for producing carrier fighters to cover the Grand Fleet.

 

[Wimpola]

According to the new Dev diary having one single cockpit aircraft might cost more than say 1 man but instead 10. This is because of ground crews and balancing factors for nations like the USA or Germany who can produce huge quantities of units. So building 100 aircraft is equivalent to one field division so it's a trade off. Is I was a small nation I would focus nearly entirely on land forces and a large nation focus a balance of men and aircraft so I have an equal strength in both air and land. That's my personal opinion because small nations have low manpower and large nations have lots of manpower.

 

[vipic]

According to the new Dev diary having one single cockpit aircraft might cost more than say 1 man but instead 10. This is because of ground crews and balancing factors for nations like the USA or Germany who can produce huge quantities of units. So building 100 aircraft is equivalent to one field division so it's a trade off. Is I was a small nation I would focus nearly entirely on land forces and a large nation focus a balance of men and aircraft so I have an equal strength in both air and land. That's my personal opinion because small nations have low manpower and large nations have lots of manpower.

Im sure this will play out more when we get the game, but it might be good to do what dan9l seems to do alot and just build fighters as a small nation. That way you can get the "Air Superiority" bonus in perhaps one air region while not having the massive overhead of having a whole fleet of bombers and close air support. Your focus is still on land but at least you can prevent bombing to a certain degree and get air superiority. I also assume that the AI has some kind of balancing metric so if its losing bombers and fighters it will start producing those to compensate chewing up IC. Since you are only focused only on fighters you might be able to produce superior fighters as that's where your tech is going rather than investing in bombers.

 

[GhengisKhan]

What type of industry you invest in can make a difference also. Going with dispersed industry and building decent amounts of AA on your industry heavy provinces could also be a good way to bleed enemy manpower and resources if you lose the upperhand in the air war.

 

[amalric de g.]

According to the new Dev diary having one single cockpit aircraft might cost more than say 1 man but instead 10. This is because of ground crews and balancing factors for nations like the USA or Germany who can produce huge quantities of units. So building 100 aircraft is equivalent to one field division so it's a trade off. Is I was a small nation I would focus nearly entirely on land forces and a large nation focus a balance of men and aircraft so I have an equal strength in both air and land. That's my personal opinion because small nations have low manpower and large nations have lots of manpower.

The interessting question is, what happens with the 9 guys, if the singleseat airplane is shot down? Are they lost? Or did they return to the pool? For minors it would be horrible if they loose a airplane and ten men, for each shot down plane. Or even more for a bomber.

 

[Wimpola]

The interessting question is, what happens with the 9 guys, if the singleseat airplane is shot down? Are they lost? Or did they return to the pool? For minors it would be horrible if they loose a airplane and ten men, for each shot down plane. Or even more for a bomber.

They didn't mention that they would go back to the pool, they just said that they were going to take up manpower for aircraft.

 

[Maizel]

If you can only focus on one, Army is obviously the one you want to focus on. Airforce second. I think all but the biggest nations can more or less ignore their navy.

 

[Lifthrasil]

The interessting question is, what happens with the 9 guys, if the singleseat airplane is shot down? Are they lost? Or did they return to the pool? For minors it would be horrible if they loose a airplane and ten men, for each shot down plane. Or even more for a bomber.

I figure they die too. Because balancing.
But this can be rationalised at least partly through roleplay, when we assume that ground forces also often died during bombing raids on airfields.
Of course this won't explain a total loss of the group, but whatever helps to maintain immersion, I guess.

 

[LUISVIGO]

In my future game as Albania, I'm planning to invest heavily in heavy bombers, as I have the protection of the sea from any possible italian invasion, and then I will turn the italian cities into rubble.

 

[Admiral Piett]

It will depend on who you are playing. For example, it would be unwise to over-invest in your ground forces as Japan, unless you are planning on a massive invasion of the Soviet Union. If you decide on the southern advance, you will need an extremely strong concentration of air power.