The excel spreadsheet I use is written in a non-English language,
It takes time for me to translate,
so
i post the conclusion and relatively strong design and their Function Graph , instead of posing the excel
Fighter TEST 1.123
- Thread starter charlottep51
- Start date
-
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.
It takes time for me to translate,
so
i post the conclusion and relatively strong design and their Function Graph , instead of posing the excel
Do you have a recommendation for a plane until you have researched the improved airframe?
Or just produce other stuff and rush the new one?
1936-L1
4x2 light machine gun+1xII engine+ Armor plate + outer oil box
You can see in the bar chart,
105000 productivity, compared to the AI fixed 60000 productivity
105000/60000 = 1.75
The productivity exchange ratio is 5.3 to 1,
So it can almost say,
If the technology is the same,
You have 1.75 times AI as many factories producing this fighter,
For every 1 productivity you lose, the enemy loses 5.3 productivity
yes , with enough rubber , replace with SST
1.123 version of dual engine is extremely expensive, almost double the cost , And the equipment slot limits what can be installed
- 1
I read somewhere that having more Air attack is not very effective once you matched the Air Defence value of the enemy plane.
In this particular case, having more than 9 Air Attack should be a waste of IC (and agility and speed)
Can you verify this claim please?
I'm sorry, is this correct?
It seems to me that T2 guns have better Air Attack/Agility loss. 1940-T1 has 8% less air attack, but 11% more agility compared to 1940-T7.
Isn't it better to have less T2 guns instead of many T1 guns?
In theory, 1940-T1 is better , and The main reason for eliminating 1940-T1 was that it was very close to 1940-T7,
Then the 1940-T1 needed the 1940 technology Tier II gun (cannon i mean)
then, According to the test data,
The 1940-T1 advantage is slightly less losses,
and the 1940-T7 advantage is slightly more shot down,
Because it is mainly oriented to PVE, AI blueprints have too low air defenses,
For this given environmental variable, the gain from increasing the shot down is greater than the gain from decreasing the losses,
I can see from the function diagram that it is profitable to sacrifice a little loss to increase the ability to shot down,
If the AI used a better air defense fighter, then I would choose 1940-T1
- 1
——>having more Air attack is not very effective once you matched the Air Defence value of the enemy plane
I don't agree with this, it's very clear that the higher the air attack, the better,
you can see the function, the huge difference in shot down plane (in same total produce cost)
1940-T2 sacrificed air defense ( only 1 armor plate ), Resulting in a significant increase in its losses,
although its shot down ability has also go better, and the exchange produce cost ratio graph has gone down greatly
- 1
When it comes to PVP, it's a different story,
example:
strategic destruction doctrine for both side And same design company
1940-L1
price=35 , total produce cost =105000 , number =3000
1940-T7
price=43 , total produce cost =105000 , number = 10500/43 ≈ 2400
battle for 3 month
1940-L1 losses = 601 ,produce cost losses = 21035
1940-T7 losses = 342 ,produce cost losses = 14706
ratio of cost = 21035 / 14706 = 0.7
======
1940-L1
price=35 , total produce cost =105000 , number =3000
1940-T1
price=43 , total produce cost =105000 , number = 10500/43 ≈ 2400
battle for 3 month
1940-L1 losses = 460 ,produce cost losses = 16100
1940-T7 losses = 260 ,produce cost losses = 11180
ratio of cost = 16100 / 11180 = 0.7
======
1940-T1
price=43 , total produce cost =105000 , number = 10500/43 ≈ 2400
1940-T7
price=43 , total produce cost =105000 , number = 10500/43 ≈ 2400
battle for 3 month
1940-T1 losses = 536 ,produce cost losses = 23048
1940-T7 losses = 460 ,produce cost losses = 19780
ratio of cost = 23048 / 19780 = 0.9
that is in PVP
1940-T7 > 1940-T1 > 1940-L1
My guess is,
Designer +10% agility+10% speed
Doctrine +10% agility
Experience Level + agility
Therefore, the agility difference between 1940-T1 and 1940-T7 is not large,
1940-T1 does not benefit enough from agility advantages,
The more attacks the better, and the slight attack advantage makes 1940-T7 win
- 1
Thanks for your replies. Everything is now very clear to me.
The sad part of this is that everyone will just spam the best model possible and we'll return in the same pre BBA scenario when everyone had the same identical model.
The sad part of this is that everyone will just spam the best model possible and we'll return in the same pre BBA scenario when everyone had the same identical model.
I don't think there is a best model, there are just best models (plural) for a variety of different tasks. The best air superiority fighter is quite different from the best bomber interceptor. The most effective CAS for ground attack is very different from the most survivable CAS. Best model depends on circumstances and what you are trying to achieve. There are far more different mission profiles in aircraft than with ships or tanks and each one leads to a different optimum.
I mean, for example, can you tell me the optimum fighter design to minimise the time it takes for a superior force to obtain overwhelming air superiority. That's a mission where exchange ratio is secondary to speed of destruction. Is that met by simply loading up with maximum fire power? Is it a quite different build from best exchange ratio?
But there's only one main task: achieve and maintain air superiority. I can't tell now which one is the best one because I lack the data and the experience, but eventually everyone will choose the model that will allow them to spam the most effective fighter with the least amount of IC. I don't know if "speed of destruction" is better than "save IC" or vice versa, but eventually we'll have an answer and it will be the same for every player.
.png){kind=avatar}
Putting aside the possibility that air superiority is so important that it trumps everything else, I'm also curious if under the current mechanics there *is* a better loadout for bomber interception than air superiority- or at least one with a meaningful advantage over the other.
Disregarding range- perhaps interceptors can often get away with a shorter range because they're often fighting over their own airfields- the obvious differentiating factor would be that if there is an agility cap then anti-bomber planes could be built with lower agility and still get the maximum agility bonus. Does that math actually work out that way under the current system and its unknown formulae? No idea. It'd be interesting to get some information on that.
Disregarding range- perhaps interceptors can often get away with a shorter range because they're often fighting over their own airfields- the obvious differentiating factor would be that if there is an agility cap then anti-bomber planes could be built with lower agility and still get the maximum agility bonus. Does that math actually work out that way under the current system and its unknown formulae? No idea. It'd be interesting to get some information on that.
Last I checked, the meta ASF was also the meta interceptor due to how much AA now matters and how inefficient Heavy Fighters are. If they made ASFs that cant really shoot down strats meta, Heavy Fighters would have a place to live.
Otherwise, if they wanted to really make a "no best plane", they need some kind of rock-paper-scissors. Im not sure that's worth the micro.
Removing Drop Tanks would hugely nerf Small ASFs, giving Heavies a chance in very large air zones.
Otherwise, if they wanted to really make a "no best plane", they need some kind of rock-paper-scissors. Im not sure that's worth the micro.
Removing Drop Tanks would hugely nerf Small ASFs, giving Heavies a chance in very large air zones.
There is already some discussion over the actual strategy that people should use in here. Even though people would have nearly the same fighter design principle, we could see different aircraft designs given the different strategic positions different people are in.
I think the most important difference is that for air superiority air defence and agility have significant importance but for killing bombers they both become much less important. If it turns out that the ideal air superiority fighter is to max out air attack at the expense of everything else then they would be the same but I don't think that is the case. I can easily max out on weapons on any single engine fighter so there is a choice between maximum firepower and balancing against defence. Now it may be the case that the best air superiority fighter gets at least close to the best exchange ratio with bombers but where bombers are concerned your exchange ratio has to include the losses from what the bombers are doing so you should be willing to accept higher fighter losses if that allows you increase bomber losses. I think the whole balance is a bit more nuanced than you think it is. After all, there is a best bomber strategy where you build bombers that are all bombing mission and defence and they don't shoot back at all.
The fact is you can't efficiently intercept bombers without at least challenge enemy air control over the region. If you only use "intercept" missions, you will kill more bombers for a while, but then the enemy escort planes will just shred your fighters with minor losses (since you're planes will prioritize bombers). It is way more efficient to prioritize fighters, acquire air superiority, and disrupt the enemy bombers.
I think this is a flaw in the combat system: raw numbers are way too important and once you start falling behind, you will need a lot more IC just to keep the pace with the losses. You can't just focus on single, strategic missions while generally conceding the air superiority. I think air combat should be much more similar to naval combat where huge numbers just give a good malus to positioning.
For interceptors I'm more thinking of the phase of the war where I end up trying to defend my rear areas against strategic bombing where the enemy has no effective fighter escort capability and the persistent frustration of how hard it is to actual do anything significant to those bombers. The bombers always seem to get through even when massively outnumbered by the fighters.