Bomb Bays vs Bomb Locks... Discussion and a Question?

[DaleDVM]

When I first looked at Bays vs Locks, I thought locks were better because my agility was not hurt as bad. However, I was mistaken (because I didn't have the bombing mission clicked). That is because with bomb locks you only lose agility when you are put onto a bombing mission. Also note, bomb locks lower agility even more than bomb bays do. However, with bomb bays you have a permanent loss of agility no matter what mission you are on.

Therefore, as far as I can tell bomb locks are primarily useful for fighter/bombers. In situations where an aircrafts only role is a bomber (and therefore, always on bombing missions) bomb bays are better. However, this may not be true if Bombers regain their agility half way through their mission after bombs are dropped with bomb locks equipped. I doubt it works this way, but if this is the case, please please someone comment here!

I have watched a few videos where there are recommendations to put bomb locks onto CAS. I don't really see any reason why I would do this.

Germany early war example for CAS mission...

Starting Stuka regular kit with

2 bomb locks 2 bomb bays
Speed 539 533
Agility 8 18
Ground Attack 12 16
Cost 27 31

All other values are the same. The bomb bays do cost 15% more but you get a 33% increase in ground attack and a 125% increase in agility.

Unless there is something I don't understand... it seems like bomb bays are always better for designated bombers, bomb locks are exclusively for multirole aircraft.

It also appears from a cost/benefit basis it is always best to fill your aircraft until you reach the weight limit for the engine or the slots available. This is because the aircraft is much more expensive than the components you include.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

However, this may not be true if Bombers regain their agility half way through their mission after bombs are dropped with bomb locks equipped. I doubt it works this way, but if this is the case, please please someone comment here!

I have watched a few videos where there are recommendations to put bomb locks onto CAS. I don't really see any reason why I would do this.

This game tracks no bombs or for that matter load (aside from supply/fuel in land divisions I guess), so no, nothing is regained.

That second point probably capitalizes on stacking battlefield support doctrine buffs with 'fake' CAS setup, where it on paper does close-range support mission yet in fact baits fighters and strikes them back with its multiple cannons/MGs put in the rest of slots. Might be fixed by now, I don't know for sure (never being a fan of such tricks myself).

 

[duke engin]

The fake CAS setup does not work as well as it looks on paper.

Because:

- There's clearly a nerf to the air support bonus (which could get as high as 35% in before times). Now I see 8-9% everywhere for some reason.
(No, it's not a frontage partly filled issue - This is still the case even when max. number of CAS according to old formula are working on the combat)

- The enemy fighters are helpless against your bombing but support AA shoots down so many planes that it makes it a bad trade in the long run.

It's a bad trade and all, but still a huge bonus if all that matters is to advance a particular front and take an objective fast.

In conclusion, going BS doctrine + Fighter bombers on CAS mission is like throwing your air on the ground.
Like a nitro-boost that last a short while, but is strong. Does cost you the air war if the enemy is all out on proper fighters.

Just the way I would've wanted it to work.

I agree with the opinion expressed in the first post.
I found that bomb locks are for cases where you focus on winning the air war first.
They cost nothing, they hurt nothing.
A small investment for the future when you want your fighters to not just fly around fighting nothing, and have something more to help the ground combat instead.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

It was not air support, it was Air Support Mission Efficiency (that's Air combat), which still is boosted by 40% as far as I see, and that 20% agility buff also beats anything one can get for fighters. It was designed to beat fighters, not land units.

 

[duke engin]

It was not air support, it was Air Support Mission Efficiency (that's Air combat), which still is boosted by 40% as far as I see, and that 20% agility buff also beats anything one can get for fighters. It was designed to beat fighters, not land units.

Am aware of the "mission efficiency" applying a stats multiplier for air combat (air attack-air defense-agility iirc).
It can in fact be boosted up to 65% (including the relevant air corps spirit).

That's why enemy fighters are helpless against fighter weapon equipped planes on CAS mission.

What I'm referring to there is the "air support" as a combat modifier applied to formations engaged in land combat.

I wrote it's name as displayed in-game, idk how clearer could I be.

Maybe it's not completely my fault and one has to be open about what more there is to know.
Tone down the auto-retaliate mechanism against anything that looks out of the ordinary compared to what they already know or sth.

Check this video out (from before times):

 

[robomax]

The fake CAS setup does not work as well as it looks on paper.

Because:

- There's clearly a nerf to the air support bonus (which could get as high as 35% in before times). Now I see 8-9% everywhere for some reason.
(No, it's not a frontage partly filled issue - This is still the case even when max. number of CAS according to old formula are working on the combat)

- The enemy fighters are helpless against your bombing but support AA shoots down so many planes that it makes it a bad trade in the long run.

It's a bad trade and all, but still a huge bonus if all that matters is to advance a particular front and take an objective fast.

In conclusion, going BS doctrine + Fighter bombers on CAS mission is like throwing your air on the ground.
Like a nitro-boost that last a short while, but is strong. Does cost you the air war if the enemy is all out on proper fighters.

Just the way I would've wanted it to work.

I agree with the opinion expressed in the first post.
I found that bomb locks are for cases where you focus on winning the air war first.
They cost nothing, they hurt nothing.
A small investment for the future when you want your fighters to not just fly around fighting nothing, and have something more to help the ground combat instead.

Ya LOL
I Created a Mod that I think is more Historical for this situation.
Bomb Bays Weight more (Center of the Plane- Under the Fuelselage ) / Do more Damage/ STRAT/ Port Strike) But have less NAV Targeting ) / Static hit to AGI but less of a hit than Bomb Locks/BombRacks.
Bomb Locks?? (Hardpoint/or weapon station/BombRack - The Correct Term Is Bomb Racks) Weigh almost nothing. AGI hit When doing Missions (Because they are on the Wings) / More DMG on CAS / Lees DMG on NAV Strikes but Higher Nav Targeting because your closer to the target than Dropping Bombs from a higher Altitude.

"- The enemy fighters are helpless against your bombing-"
This is because of Air Superiority small CAS and Small Fighters have the same Air Superiority . If you put up more number s the AI won't even challenge.
So I have fix this
When CAS is CASin It receives only the base in Air Superiority 1.0
When Small Fighters are on Air Superiority mission they receive a bonus
Or When Heavy Fighters are CASing they longer receive the Static 1.25 while CASing (DLC-BBA-only)
So it becomes no longer a numbers game.

CAS wasn't even a Thing . The True 1st CAS Fighter wasn't til 1946 . CAS Bombing was dangerous to Friendly Troops (they found this out in ww1) Till more advanced Radar systems and Targeting was invited most Fighter-Bombers in ww2 were used for Logistics strikes behind enemy lines so the enemy could not reinforce its front line. . Even the Suka and P-51 Mustang were not considered CAS .

 

[Gran Strategist]

CAS wasn't even a Thing . The True 1st CAS Fighter wasn't til 1946 . CAS Bombing was dangerous to Friendly Troops (they found this out in ww1) Till more advanced Radar systems and Targeting was invited most Fighter-Bombers in ww2 were used for Logistics strikes behind enemy lines so the enemy could not reinforce its front line. . Even the Suka and P-51 Mustang were not considered CAS .

While it is true that during WW2 you would not want to call in air support for an enemy a few feet away as it was extremely dangerous to your own side (and still is in this modern age) which is why the Russians in particular liked to try to get in as close as possible to prevent the Germans utilizing their superior air power in the first half of the war. The stuka was most certainly a close air support aircraft with part of the revalation and success of blitzkrieg being the fact ground units had communications detachments which could talk directly to the air units and direct them to specific targets in direct support of their advance much like calling in artillery.

While most cas and later fighter bombers were often left to roam free in search of targets of opportunity which often involved what would be classed as logistics strikes in the game during specific operations in particular specific air wings would be designated to cas roles. The allies did not really have a really dedicated cas ability until 1941 when the British army and airforce started to really work closely together and coordinate their efforts which cumulated in what came to be known as a taxi rank system in Normandy where cas would circle above like in a holding pattern around an airport and air controllers detached to ground units could talk to them directly and guide then to strike specific targets.

Due to lack of accuracy this generally was not a target right in front of you although in some deperate cases they did call in air strikes against close in troops when under threat of being overrun like in Bastogne but it was in direct support of ground units such as taking out sniper positions, mortar positions, machine guns nests, a tank or tanks targeting them or preventing an advance or units forming up to attack. i.e. direct immediate threats identified by the unit on the ground and neutralising those direct threats at the specific request of those ground units. Tasks which traditionally be given to artillery but with mechanisation and rapid movement artillery often had trouble keeping up with the advance to be able to support units properly and thus cas were mobile artillery. This is the definition of cloase air support although it has got a lot closer as technology has advanced.

After i wrote that last sentance i thought it prudent to check the definition of cas and a very quick search brought up

Close air support - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

which gives a brief overview of the evolution of cas and the definition of cas being "In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets near friendly forces and require detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces".

 

[eastcoastceojam]

I missed this thread while I was on Thanksgiving vacation, but here's a couple things I didn't see mentioned above:

• Bomb Locks allow CAS to perform Naval Strike mission.
• Bomb Bays allow CAS to perform the Port Strike mission.
• Bomb Locks and Bomb Bays both do the same amount of Naval Attack (2.0), but Locks have more naval targeting.
• Adding Torpedos to CAS allows both missions, and does more Naval Attack, but it is the most expensive, and has no Ground Attack.

Bomb Locks are something to keep in mind if you wanted to perform Naval Strikes on occasion, without having to run a separate production line of NAVs or Torpedo-equipped TAC Bombers.

 

[robomax]

While it is true that during WW2 you would not want to call in air support for an enemy a few feet away as it was extremely dangerous to your own side (and still is in this modern age) which is why the Russians in particular liked to try to get in as close as possible to prevent the Germans utilizing their superior air power in the first half of the war. The stuka was most certainly a close air support aircraft with part of the revalation and success of blitzkrieg being the fact ground units had communications detachments which could talk directly to the air units and direct them to specific targets in direct support of their advance much like calling in artillery.

While most cas and later fighter bombers were often left to roam free in search of targets of opportunity which often involved what would be classed as logistics strikes in the game during specific operations in particular specific air wings would be designated to cas roles. The allies did not really have a really dedicated cas ability until 1941 when the British army and airforce started to really work closely together and coordinate their efforts which cumulated in what came to be known as a taxi rank system in Normandy where cas would circle above like in a holding pattern around an airport and air controllers detached to ground units could talk to them directly and guide then to strike specific targets.

Due to lack of accuracy this generally was not a target right in front of you although in some deperate cases they did call in air strikes against close in troops when under threat of being overrun like in Bastogne but it was in direct support of ground units such as taking out sniper positions, mortar positions, machine guns nests, a tank or tanks targeting them or preventing an advance or units forming up to attack. i.e. direct immediate threats identified by the unit on the ground and neutralising those direct threats at the specific request of those ground units. Tasks which traditionally be given to artillery but with mechanisation and rapid movement artillery often had trouble keeping up with the advance to be able to support units properly and thus cas were mobile artillery. This is the definition of cloase air support although it has got a lot closer as technology has advanced.

After i wrote that last sentance i thought it prudent to check the definition of cas and a very quick search brought up

Close air support - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

which gives a brief overview of the evolution of cas and the definition of cas being "In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action such as air strikes by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets near friendly forces and require detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces".

TY I have already read it and even more information.
Another Issue is adding a Engine doesn't make plane any Faster . Adding Engines adds thrust . According to Boeing. Small Plane frame adding a 2 engine is a exploit.
This what it should look like
engine_1_1x = {
abbreviation = "e11"
category = plane_engine_type
sfx = sfx_ui_sd_module_engine

add_stats = {
maximum_speed = 350
thrust = 16
build_cost_ic = 10
fuel_consumption = 0.16
}


}

engine_1_2x = {
abbreviation = "e12"
category = twin_plane_engine_type
sfx = sfx_ui_sd_module_engine

add_stats = {
maximum_speed = 325
thrust = 23
build_cost_ic = 20
fuel_consumption = 0.32
}
}

engine_1_3x = {
abbreviation = "e13"
category = medium_plane_engine_type
sfx = sfx_ui_sd_module_engine

add_stats = {
maximum_speed = 300
thrust = 32
build_cost_ic = 30
fuel_consumption = 0.48
}
}

engine_1_4x = {
abbreviation = "e14"
category = quad_large_plane_engine_type
sfx = sfx_ui_sd_module_engine

add_stats = {
maximum_speed = 285
thrust = 39
build_cost_ic = 40
fuel_consumption = 0.64
}
}

 

[Kanitatlan]

In one of the patches the agility penalties for bomb locks and small bomb bay were swapped. If you see a recommendation on YouTube you need to be careful about when it was created as the change made a difference to best choices between the two. Other than that you need to be aware that the trade offs about what ground attack builds to use are affected by a number of factors

• Ground attack aircraft above the total combat width limit for the region aren't going to support any combat. In that case you may be better off with more expensive stronger ground attack planes. In this case expensive high density firepower.
• If you are unsure about air superiority then better air combat capable CAS may be a good idea (for that theatre) - ie use bomb locks
• If you feel that ground attack width isn't going to run out then being able to put fighters onto CAS missions is useful but you need to be aware that this isn't sensible for early war fighters and changing to fighter bombers later gives you problems with upgrading your fighter squadrons
• As mentioned above, ground AA can be nasty and if that is a major concern then you want cheap CAS

 

[The Colonel]

The fake CAS setup does not work as well as it looks on paper.

Have to disagree with this. While as a strategy it has disadvantages (such as much decreased ability to project power i.e. putting your planes on air superiority mission over a sea zone), the CAS-fighters can get ridiculous trades which is all that really matters most of the time. Also, at some point since BBA released (this was not true at first), a change was made that allows bombers to engage other bombers, and this seems to take priority, so CAS fighters will absolutely delete an enemy's CAS that are up in the air. Previously, a theoretical counterplay to CAS fighters was to just not dogfight them and only put up your own dedicated CAS, which would do more actual damage to enemy troops. Now, your slow bombers are being engaged by basically a fighter plane that has extreme doctrine buffs and will take losses in ratios like 1:100.

I don't want to clog up the thread with excessive details from teh testing I did, but suffice to say this was the result of 8k German CAS fighters vs. 8k French fighters 1k french CAS. 1940 techs with full doctrine (BS vs. OI) and relevant spirits (the CAS mission one vs. centralized control). The French even have better base detection and efficiency since we are fighting over Northern France.

CAS fighters outtrade dedicated enemy fighters (that are also objectively better since they have self-sealing fueltanks since allies can afford rubber) and shot down the entire starting deployed french CAS force in 1 month.

Also, a minor benefit of CAS fighters is if there is no combat going on, they just don't fly, so you don't waste fuel or planes dogfighting when there is no combat (and thus you don't need air superiority or ground support bonuses anyway). This isn't a huge deal, but probably nice for Germany/Axis especially (or in SP as anyone fuel and/or IC-strapped).

 

[robomax]

(that are also objectively better since they have self-sealing fueltanks since allies can afford rubber)

I looked in Files and the Ai Can't use Self Sealing Fuel Tanks? Or Im I looking in the wrong Place? And Why does Japan use the Generic Planes File , vs all other Majors having their own?

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Have to disagree with this. While as a strategy it has disadvantages (such as much decreased ability to project power i.e. putting your planes on air superiority mission over a sea zone), the CAS-fighters can get ridiculous trades which is all that really matters most of the time. Also, at some point since BBA released (this was not true at first), a change was made that allows bombers to engage other bombers, and this seems to take priority, so CAS fighters will absolutely delete an enemy's CAS that are up in the air. Previously, a theoretical counterplay to CAS fighters was to just not dogfight them and only put up your own dedicated CAS, which would do more actual damage to enemy troops. Now, your slow bombers are being engaged by basically a fighter plane that has extreme doctrine buffs and will take losses in ratios like 1:100.

I don't want to clog up the thread with excessive details from teh testing I did, but suffice to say this was the result of 8k German CAS fighters vs. 8k French fighters 1k french CAS. 1940 techs with full doctrine (BS vs. OI) and relevant spirits (the CAS mission one vs. centralized control). The French even have better base detection and efficiency since we are fighting over Northern France.

View attachment 925172


CAS fighters outtrade dedicated enemy fighters (that are also objectively better since they have self-sealing fueltanks since allies can afford rubber) and shot down the entire starting deployed french CAS force in 1 month.

Also, a minor benefit of CAS fighters is if there is no combat going on, they just don't fly, so you don't waste fuel or planes dogfighting when there is no combat (and thus you don't need air superiority or ground support bonuses anyway). This isn't a huge deal, but probably nice for Germany/Axis especially (or in SP as anyone fuel and/or IC-strapped).

Super interesting, thanks for testing.

So basically you give the CAS like one ground attack module and then pack on as much air attack as possible?

 

[The_Tim]

your assessment is pretty much correct

Bomb Bays are best for dedicated CAS(though Bomb Lock's big brother-the Rocket Rails can be VERY handy for upping the Ground Attack value of TAC), while Bomb Locks are better either for fighters, or if you are a nation that's strapped for aircraft(for instance, GER) you can make CAS that can also make due for half-decent fighters if you need them to fill that role

 

[The Colonel]

I looked in Files and the Ai Can't use Self Sealing Fuel Tanks? Or Im I looking in the wrong Place? And Why does Japan use the Generic Planes File , vs all other Majors having their own?

Meant in an MP context. Allies have access to basically unlimited rubber unless they lose all of Indonesia to Japan, so can comfortably use self-sealing fuel tanks. Germans cannot afford that since they only get scraps from Japan and their own synthetics for the first two years of war.

Super interesting, thanks for testing.

So basically you give the CAS like one ground attack module and then pack on as much air attack as possible?

Yeah you put one small bomb bay then everything else is fighter equipment (except you can trade one armor plate for dive brakes since they'll be on CAS mission anyway)

 

[blahmaster6k]

It was not air support, it was Air Support Mission Efficiency (that's Air combat), which still is boosted by 40% as far as I see, and that 20% agility buff also beats anything one can get for fighters. It was designed to beat fighters, not land units.

Normal fighters still come out slightly ahead here as far as agility is concerned. CAS planes don't benefit from the light air designer, so the 10% from doctrine and 10% from the fighter designer slightly edge out the 20% from the CAS doctrine because they are multiplicative.

Have to disagree with this. While as a strategy it has disadvantages (such as much decreased ability to project power i.e. putting your planes on air superiority mission over a sea zone), the CAS-fighters can get ridiculous trades which is all that really matters most of the time. Also, at some point since BBA released (this was not true at first), a change was made that allows bombers to engage other bombers, and this seems to take priority, so CAS fighters will absolutely delete an enemy's CAS that are up in the air. Previously, a theoretical counterplay to CAS fighters was to just not dogfight them and only put up your own dedicated CAS, which would do more actual damage to enemy troops. Now, your slow bombers are being engaged by basically a fighter plane that has extreme doctrine buffs and will take losses in ratios like 1:100.

I don't want to clog up the thread with excessive details from teh testing I did, but suffice to say this was the result of 8k German CAS fighters vs. 8k French fighters 1k french CAS. 1940 techs with full doctrine (BS vs. OI) and relevant spirits (the CAS mission one vs. centralized control). The French even have better base detection and efficiency since we are fighting over Northern France.

View attachment 925172


CAS fighters outtrade dedicated enemy fighters (that are also objectively better since they have self-sealing fueltanks since allies can afford rubber) and shot down the entire starting deployed french CAS force in 1 month.

Also, a minor benefit of CAS fighters is if there is no combat going on, they just don't fly, so you don't waste fuel or planes dogfighting when there is no combat (and thus you don't need air superiority or ground support bonuses anyway). This isn't a huge deal, but probably nice for Germany/Axis especially (or in SP as anyone fuel and/or IC-strapped).

I agree with you here, but keep in mind they're also very weak against strategic bombing/logistics strike since they are bad on interception. I'm guessing most servers still ban strat bombers and logistics strike, but last time I played strat bombing was usually allowed with TAC.

 

[The Colonel]

I agree with you here, but keep in mind they're also very weak against strategic bombing/logistics strike since they are bad on interception. I'm guessing most servers still ban strat bombers and logistics strike, but last time I played strat bombing was usually allowed with TAC.

Yeah where I play logi-strike is disabled, altho if it were actually over a combat region I'd expect CAS to still shred it. Isolated bombers over your territory should be same story, you don't really need the AGI defense buff and your planes still have good stats. The issue would be something like UK constantly logi-striking the trucks in holland where they can put up thousands of fighters from the UK, which is basically exactly why it was banned on my server as you can just ruin Axis truck stockpiles whenever they're not looking (and also Axis could delete Soviet supply).

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yeah where I play logi-strike is disabled, altho if it were actually over a combat region I'd expect CAS to still shred it. Isolated bombers over your territory should be same story, you don't really need the AGI defense buff and your planes still have good stats. The issue would be something like UK constantly logi-striking the trucks in holland where they can put up thousands of fighters from the UK, which is basically exactly why it was banned on my server as you can just ruin Axis truck stockpiles whenever they're not looking (and also Axis could delete Soviet supply).

I do find it kind of funny that logistics strike is banned because historically it's pretty much exactly what the Allies did the entire war in the west after D-Day.

I'm curious why there need to be Axis trucks in Holland though. Armored trains don't take all that many losses to logistics strike, and I would imagine coast garrisons would be fine with just horse supply.

 

[Findell_HOI]

I do find it kind of funny that logistics strike is banned because historically it's pretty much exactly what the Allies did the entire war in the west after D-Day.

I'm curious why there need to be Axis trucks in Holland though. Armored trains don't take all that many losses to logistics strike, and I would imagine coast garrisons would be fine with just horse supply.

The reason logistics strike is banned is because it makes for constant desyncs and crashes not because of gameplay reasons.

 

[The Colonel]

I do find it kind of funny that logistics strike is banned because historically it's pretty much exactly what the Allies did the entire war in the west after D-Day.

I'm curious why there need to be Axis trucks in Holland though. Armored trains don't take all that many losses to logistics strike, and I would imagine coast garrisons would be fine with just horse supply.

I dunno, that's just how I saw it explained to me. I agree Axis should be able to just not use trucks until they are piling in more units to fight actual DDay, at which point they need to contest air anyway. More convincing to me is that it would let the Axis absolutely bully the Soviets. Haven't heard about desyncs.