ICBMS

[Synicus]

Not imo.

 

[Vlad123]

I wouldn't spam WWI planes to get air superiority against a competent opponent. You will get thrashed in the skies and your planes will be farmed for air XP.

But I also wouldn't waste time with jets, either. I haven't tested them lately, but every time I have, they are either inferior to other types of planes at the 1944-46 tech level at shooting down bombers, or not cost effective against fighters, or even worse than rocket interceptors against strategic bombing. And by the time you can finally get them, for most games, it doesn't matter. And the opportunity cost is substantial.

There is a cogent argument for grabbing rocket techs just to make Rocket Artillery good. There is a tipping point in techs where Rocket Artillery beats tube artillery once you have enough techs in place. But that's not my thing.

only for rocket artillery are good. PS: the spam of WW1 airplane are good for SP because IA are dumb

 

[Secret Master]

PS: the spam of WW1 airplane are good for SP because IA are dumb

Didn't I cover that with my statement?

air superiority against a competent opponent.

 

[Louella]

I should also point out that no one should be using strategic rockets in HOI4 anyway. They are buggy and inflict tiny amounts of damage due to how the missiles run the mission and the placement of rocket sites in certain states.

iirc, vanilla, the rocket sites launch 1 rocket per day, and tier 1 missiles (the V-1 model) often don't even have enough range to strike a different air zone.

 

[Dlin369]

The problem is that they only serve to unlock the jet technology for ... ah no wait just spam ww1 biplanes to get air superiority ...

I think Air-Warfare in HOI4 is pretty heavily slanted in favor of those with better tech rather than those with more planes. Everytime I try massing a bunch of 1936 airplanes against considerably fewer 1940 ones as the Soviet Union, most of my planes get shot down from the sky in a few weeks

 

[Vlad123]

I think Air-Warfare in HOI4 is pretty heavily slanted in favor of those with better tech rather than those with more planes. Everytime I try massing a bunch of 1936 airplanes against considerably fewer 1940 ones as the Soviet Union, most of my planes get shot down from the sky in a few weeks

this was canged by a update? i Remember a user can hate their Jet not do a slaugther of enemy biplane

 

[Secret Master]

this was canged by a update? i Remember a user can hate their Jet not do a slaugther of enemy biplane

I never recall that being the case in any iteration of the game.

I did some tests a long time ago that demonstrated Tier 1 Jets were kind of crappy against 1944 light fighters because certain doctrine and air designer buffs didn't apply to them. But they'd still tear lower tech planes to shreds.

And this thread has some tests that show Interwar fighters trying to intercept and shoot down B-29s and jet bombers.

Spoiler

The bi-planes died in absolute droves trying to kill a few B-29s

 

[Mister Analyst]

iirc, vanilla, the rocket sites launch 1 rocket per day, and tier 1 missiles (the V-1 model) often don't even have enough range to strike a different air zone.

The HOI4 wiki page missile supports your statement.

Model	Icon	Year	Strategic Bombing	Agility	Max Speed	Range (km)	Fuel Usage	Naval Targeting	Naval Attack	Reliability	Production Cost	Resources Per Factory
Guided Missile I		1944	300.0	10.0	640 km/h	500		0.6	1.5	80.0%	None - auto generate 1 per day per rocket site	0
Guided Missile II		1945	450.0	10.0	5760 km/h	640		0.6	1.5	80.0%	None - auto generate 1 per day per rocket site	0
Guided Missile III		1946	600.0	10.0	9999 km/h	11000		0.6	1.5	80.0%	None - auto generate 1 per day per rocket site	0

 

[Voigt]

1945 Jet planes you should only ever consider, if you run out of Al and need even more production on planes.
1950 Jet Fighters are decent, especially because of their range in the pacific or if you are fighting the USA with their quite big airzones.

But yeah reaching 1950 techs is quite rare in a regular game for most of us, even with boosts.

 

[Vlad123]

1945 Jet planes you should only ecer consider if you run out of Al and need even more production on planes.
1950 Jet Fighters are decent, especially because of their range in the pacific or if you are fighting the USA with their quite big airzones.

But yeah reaching 1950 techs is quite rare in a regular game for most of us, even with boosts.

Making those technologies effectively useless for a normal game ...

 

[Wuidera]

Are rocket sites any good?

No they are not.

I dont know how many times i tried to use them when playing as Germany...

400 Strat. Bombers always did better than my 5k missles.



To be fair, Strat.Boming was way more effictve than the German V1 and 2, historical speaking.

 

[Feeblezak]

They are probably useless because they simply materialise out of thin air once you build the rocket site.

I’m not sure why it is like that. The V-1 and V-2 programs consumed vast amounts of resources and tremendous amounts of labour. You should have to produce them like any other type of equipment.

 

[Synicus]

I think they should do a number on enemy war support.
Often missing the target they were more for terror on the people.
Though they really didn't affect the Brits as hoped.

 

[DicRoNero]

I did some tests a long time ago that demonstrated Tier 1 Jets were kind of crappy against 1944 light fighters because certain doctrine and air designer buffs didn't apply to them. But they'd still tear lower tech planes to shreds.

Should be really dated tests by now, as Jets do in fact benefit from all doctrines for at least a year or two.

Without the designer, Jets I trade exactly 1:1 against LF III w/ LF Manufacturer (+10% speed and agility), which still is a IC loss as well as Resources and Fuel, but at least it saves some Aluminum, provided that is a bottleneck.

Jets II trade 2:3 under same conditions, which still is a criminal underrate of effectively Korean War planes.

I honestly don't get the PDX logic here: not only they created an environment (quite toxic one) where the game is all about air production and to a far smaller degree air research, yet where the progression somehow effectively ends in 1944, skyrocketing in the years before that; they also have been maintaining the same state of things for years by now.