fighters vs interceptors

[inselkammer]

i usually only use fighters due to their higher range, but i often see in AARs that most people prefer interceptors.

i am wondering why. what am i missing? the fighters cost a bit more but do have a higher range, which is sometimes very useful and if IRR also the stats are the same for the same generation of planes.

so why would i choose Interceptors ?

 

[unmerged(42723)]

Combat bonus vs. bombers, which FGT doesn't get.

That said, the bigger nations can easily afford both, and I use both types indeed then.

 

[Jos de trol]

depends on who you are and where you are fighting

as germany you should go for interceptors because of their bonus against bombers and their range is good enough to operate in western europe and not that bad in eastern europe/USSR either

 

[ltccone]

I only use FTRs even as Germany. It saves a whole tech tree of research. Plus, FTRs don't upgrade to useless rocket interceptors. As Germany I solve the 'bomber' problem by conquering Britain.

 

[Teurlinx]

I only use FTRs even as Germany. It saves a whole tech tree of research. Plus, FTRs don't upgrade to useless rocket interceptors. As Germany I solve the 'bomber' problem by conquering Britain.

Actually, you'll save the same amount of tech if you only take the INT tech tree and none of the FTR one.
The 2 up-sides are that INT gets the bonus against bombers and that you will already have some INT from the start, which you can keep upgrading for little cost. If you research only FTR tech you'll waste the perfectly fine INT-squadrons you start out with.
Why research and build an entirely new fighter force when you can just upgrade the one you start out with for little cost?

 

[ltccone]

Actually, you'll save the same amount of tech if you only take the INT tech tree and none of the FTR one.
The 2 up-sides are that INT gets the bonus against bombers and that you will already have some INT from the start, which you can keep upgrading for little cost. If you research only FTR tech you'll waste the perfectly fine INT-squadrons you start out with.
Why research and build an entirely new fighter force when you can just upgrade the one you start out with for little cost?

I use 1 FTR w/3 CAS to keep them alive (also FTR is better at spotting ships than CAS), so I have to build FTR anyway. Britain is conquered by early 1940 so the bomber bonus doesn't matter.

As for the INTs Germany starts with, I disband them when I start the '36 scenario.

 

[Teurlinx]

You could just build 3 things: CAS, INF and NAV. I'm not sure why you want anything but 4x NAV for bombing ships. For the protection just use the 4x INF stacks. For any land attacks the 4x CAS stacks. Really all you need, especially if you start as Germany. All the research-time and IC-time saved will come in handy...

 

[ALordaB]

I use 1 FTR w/3 CAS to keep them alive

Isn´t that actually bad for the CAS aircraft if they get intercepted?

 

[ltccone]

Isn´t that actually bad for the CAS aircraft if they get intercepted?

How?

 

[ltccone]

You could just build 3 things: CAS, INF and NAV. I'm not sure why you want anything but 4x NAV for bombing ships. For the protection just use the 4x INF stacks. For any land attacks the 4x CAS stacks. Really all you need, especially if you start as Germany. All the research-time and IC-time saved will come in handy...

In 1939 Germany hasn't had time to build NAV. CAS + TAC do just fine bombing the RN in the English Channel for the Army to get a foothold across the Channel.

I build NAV later on.

 

[Teurlinx]

In 1939 Germany hasn't had time to build NAV. CAS + TAC do just fine bombing the RN in the English Channel for the Army to get a foothold across the Channel.

I build NAV later on.

NAV is a '38 model which makes it easy to get before '39 if you're a nation like Germany with super-tech-teams. Especially if you forget about anything but INT, CAS and NAV which saves a lot of IC-time and research time

 

[ALordaB]

How?

I heard that mixing a FTR or INT with CAS makes the whole group fight longer instead of retreating, which usually causes the CAS aircraft to suffer bigger losses since you usually get intercepted by far more fighters/interceptors than you single FTR/INT can handle.

 

[ltccone]

NAV is a '38 model which makes it easy to get before '39 if you're a nation like Germany with super-tech-teams. Especially if you forget about anything but INT, CAS and NAV which saves a lot of IC-time and research time

I know you CAN build them, but you don't need to. NAVs are no help in Russia. The only reason I build them is to bomb the USN in the Pacific. They are too specialized, like INT.

TAC are good overall planes than can do anything. They are especially useful east of the Urals where CAS are practically useless.

 

[ltccone]

I heard that mixing a FTR or INT with CAS makes the whole group fight longer instead of retreating, which usually causes the CAS aircraft to suffer bigger losses since you usually get intercepted by far more fighters/interceptors than you single FTR/INT can handle.

I've seen unescorted CAS get intercepted by INT or FTR. The result is not pretty.

I have FTRs on air superiority missions wherever I use CAS, so I have never had a problem.

 

[ALordaB]

I've seen unescorted CAS get intercepted by INT or FTR. The result is not pretty.

Then the result of a 3 CAS + 1 FTR flight group being intercepted should be even worse.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8743784&postcount=2

I have FTRs on air superiority missions wherever I use CAS, so I have never had a problem.

Well, if you have air superiority, which is be the priority before starting CAS missions, why do you mix FTR with CAS? Flavour? Honest question, I´m not critizising.

 

[dertechie]

I tend to use both. About 32 squadrons of INT in Germany and France keeping the RAF and USAAF busy, 7x4 on permanent assignments, 1x4 going where the allies decide to send fighters. INTs are cheaper, at least initially (after all the upgrades I have yet to do the math. . .) and they maul RAF bombers better. FTR get used for offensive operations, I like not having to rebase them every other second in the USSR and they're capable ground attackers when the USSR stops sending up fighters of its own.

Chalk it up to RP, INTs for air defence, FTR for air offence.

 

[unmerged(89729)]

I tent to build INTs in the past, but then found that for some reason FTRs stay longer alive. One game where I was not building any FTRs and only INTs in vh game I lost so many INTs when playing as GER that I just didn't have time or resources to replace so high losses. At the same time playing with only FTRs protecting my French coast against Britts I lost during 5 years of fighting only single or possible 2 FTRs. Since then I don't bother building INTs and build them only for coolness or if I have extra resources available.

 

[Spruce]

many points, many reasons, my reason is to go for FTR because they achieve air superiority over INT.

What good are INT if they'll get shot down by the many FTR ?

 

[unmerged(132371)]

Normally only fighters and TAC , then later maybe CAS and or NAV.

 

[KevinG]

Why does everyone keep saying that in a straight up fight fighters > ints? Early interceptors have slightly BETTER stats than early fighters and are much cheaper. Unless there's a hidden modifier (which I doubt) there's no way that fighters can dominate ints as much as people here are claiming. I still build fighters mainly unless I'm Germany or the USSR because the extra range is worth the 2-3 IC difference unless you choose to exploit the system by keeping airbases in queue, in which case range doesn't matter.