One of these is not like the others...

[Melbar]

Is airpower really that op? Seen a lot of complaints that "no air sov" is really strong. Ignoring air as a major should cost you greatly. Instead, opting for a no air-strat is really strong vs nations who only build fighters, since their great investment in air will only net them a small debuff to enemies from air superiority (reduced by div AA).

Seems to me that teleporting planes and ai strat bombers jumping zones are both more pressing problems.

 

[xtfoster]

It doesn't have to be major. I mean, the number of planes should go down on the whole, but there doesn't have to be a single solution. We could go for several solutions, like slightly increasing production costs, slightly increasing accidents, slightly decreasing reliability, slightly increasing AA damage, slightly increasing production costs for new airfields etc...

Assuming they add an aircraft designer, like MtG's ships and NSB's tanks, then the costs (at least for the most effective versions) will most likely go up.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Is airpower really that op? Seen a lot of complaints that "no air sov" is really strong. Ignoring air as a major should cost you greatly. Instead, opting for a no air-strat is really strong vs nations who only build fighters, since their great investment in air will only net them a small debuff to enemies from air superiority (reduced by div AA).

Seems to me that teleporting planes and ai strat bombers jumping zones are both more pressing problems.

No air USSR has not been viable in MP since NSB came out, mostly due to how nerfed tanks are. In SP it works fine but (especially since the AI doesn't build planes that well) it's still possibly more optimal to build air.

 

[Putuna]

You can absolutely send CAS against enemy fighters without an escort, I've done it many times, with success. They actually trade fairly well against fighters. Not enough to grab air superiority on their own, of course, but they can survive long enough to win a war. If you had two countries of equal industry, and one made only fighters while the other one made only CAS, the one making CAS would win every time because of the endurance of CAS and the massive damage they do to ground troops. This is what makes CAS OP; they should be, as their name implies, support, but they can really basically win wars on their own.

How would they do against heavy fighters though?

 

[Reman]

There isn't much in the way of data. But it does demonstrate how the bug works. It is a different scenario from the bug report though.

Great video. Airwing jank strikes again!

 

[Secret Master]

Is airpower really that op? Seen a lot of complaints that "no air sov" is really strong.

Even when that was a viable approach, it would still rely on the western powers having enough air in the west to force the issue with a much earlier than historical Overlord. Not to mention having to deflect against TACs on strategic bombing, so the Axis can't commit 100% of their air to the west.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

it would still rely on the western powers having enough air in the west to force the issue with a much earlier than historical Overlord.

you needed an early Dday regardless as the USSR, since (at least when boosting was banned) there was no way to outproduce the Germans - time was not on your side. similarly, even if they weren't planning on Dday-ing the Allies needed air superiority to trade with the Axis by way of bombing. but by 1941 the Allies always have enough materiel to push each supply zone to the limit of what it can support near-regardless of how hard they invest in air.

Not to mention having to deflect against TACs on strategic bombing, so the Axis can't commit 100% of their air to the west.

what do you mean by this? did you mean to say East? against a no-air USSR the Axis can focus all their fighters on fighting the Allies.

 

[Secret Master]

what do you mean by this? did you mean to say East? against a no-air USSR the Axis can focus all their fighters on fighting the Allies.

Yep, that's what I meant.

even if they weren't planning on Dday-ing the Allies

Did you mean Sea Lion the Allies?

 

[xtfoster]

Did you mean Sea Lion the Allies?

Pretty sure he meant DDaying the Axis. As in, the No-Air USSR was viable as long as the Allies could tie up the Axis Air Forces in the West, even if they didn't invade continental Europe.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I'm laughing at the irony of the following... just to be clear, this was all simple misunderstanding, no hard feelings intended!

Yep, that's what I meant.



Did you mean Sea Lion the Allies?

similarly, even if they weren't planning on Dday-ing the Allies needed air superiority to trade with the Axis by way of bombing.

maybe I should have added a comma:

similarly, even if they weren't planning on Dday-ing, the Allies needed air superiority to trade with the Axis by way of bombing.

the Allies basically need air superiority for being able to bomb the Axis, even if they aren't (early) D-daying. (is what I meant)

Pretty sure he meant DDaying the Axis. As in, the No-Air USSR was viable as long as the Allies could tie up the Axis Air Forces in the West, even if they didn't invade continental Europe.

yes and no... i did mean D-daying the Axis, but no-air USSR didn't inherently have anything to do with the Allies tying up the Axis air force in the West (by means of bombing or otherwise). after all, the Axis would be able to get air superiority over the USSR with (practically just) bombers alone, which the Allies wouldn't be able to "tie up." if anything, it was and is by air-based USSRs that the USSR relies on the Allies to force the Axis to trade air - otherwise the USSR won't be able to have trade-worthy air counts for Barb.

 

[Secret Master]

this was all simple misunderstanding

 

[Sarmatian]

I think that even in SP, no air USSR is a vastly inferior strategy to one with airforce. The fact that you CAN win vs Axis with no air isn't really relevant - players have made world conquests as Luxembourg against the AI.

The problem, for me, isn't really in the early game (1939-1942 or so) but starts getting pronounced after 1942, when there's a lot of IC for planes and bases, stacking bonuses for production, air XP is a non-issue and range of planes increases significantly.
All these brakes and speed bumps from early game disappear. With ground units there's at least a finite resource in manpower.

I wonder if creating pilots as a separate resource might work well. For example, you decide how much IC (and/or some other resource) you invest, and based on investment you get a constant trickle from your manpower to pilots after a delay. Then you can only send as much planes on missions as you have available pilots.