Planes and Radar Stations?

[Zardnaar]

Is it just me or are planes kind of meh in AoD?

At least bombers. Tac bombers are useful for interdiction, CAS seem out right useless along with strategic bombers. Fighters are useful as Germany due to the clouds of allied bombers the AI throws at you.

And playing some of the smaller Axis nations or Italy I had a look at some late game saves and America has entire fleets of planes to throw at you. Like in excess of 80+.

In vanilla AoD I often used around 6 wings of fighters, 5 wings of tac bombers and maybe 4-5 wings of CAS as Germany.

In AoD you send them out on a bombing mission and sure enough they all come back with damage or get intercepted very easily. As Germany if you build a heap of fighters/interceptors and micro manage them vs the Allied air armada over say France you can have 200 IC of repairs due fairly quickly.

This grounds your entire airforce unless you have built a stupidly large amount of fighters and you cycle in a heap of new ones or manually take out individual plane from wings to form new undamaged wings. I htik the Luftwaffe has something like 5 wings of fighters and 7 or 8 wings of interceptors. Any attempt at clearing the skies of allies planes usually results in a wrecked airforce. I cankeep the skies over west Germany clear, France around Paris is a bit different.

The only way my planes tend to get much experience is say as the USSR vs Finland in the winter war dragging it out via militia.

I have been testing out building radar sites but IDK how they work or if they make enough difference to be worth building.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Fighters are useful as Germany due to the clouds of allied bombers the AI throws at you.

That would rather favour Interceptors over multirole fighters. Fighters have a greater range, but Interceptors are better during air vs. air battle and in addition to that they get a 20% bonus against bombers.

Tac bombers are useful for interdiction, CAS seem out right useless along with strategic bombers.

I donnot like strategic bombers. For using them right one needs to use them so that the enemy is so crippled that it takes the fun out of the game. CAS is a different matter. Their low range makes them hard to manage, but their abilty at interdiction is great. It is of course a question of proper micromanagement. Interdiction reduces Org and supplies of the attacked enemy. This allows to soften up unentreched enemies so that your ground troops have easy game against them. The problem is that this would be most useful when starting an offensive, but then troops are usually well entrenched. Also the relative impact of interdiction is not so great when your ground forces are fighting very efficiently, then no air support is needed. It is needed when ground fighting efficiency is expected to be low(say armour rushing into mountains) or when antedating the end of a battle a by a few hours creates crucial difference for your overall campaign.

 

[Commander666]

I testing out building radar sites but IDK how they work or if they make enough difference to be worth building.

In my past testing of radar I discovered that most of the time radar does not turn on - even when built up to 3 levels and having 1940 Improved Decimetric radar tech. As the investment at that point exceeded the benefits if it had been put into more interceptors instead, I concluded I would never build radar again. My final report I stated, 'It is June 1941, UK developed IMPROVED decimetric radar about 6 months ago, and recorded the details of each air battle over LEVEL 3 Radar Sites. The fact is that radar turned on only four times in 11 encounters. When it did turn on, half the time it only turned on for last 2 hours of the battle - making that a minor contribution."

Personally I quite like the radar installation for flavor, but it needs much greater efficiency to compete favorably with putting that same investment into extra aircraft.

EDIT: And checking another game with a liberated UK now having level 5 radar sites and the very latest 1944 radar tech, not once in 6 months did the radar even turn on although several air battles occurred - so making it the most useless installation in AoD I have experienced.

 

[Count of Reval]

As I understand it, apart the chance of a combat bonus, radars guide fighters/ interceptors on their air superiority mission toward enemy planes and improve AA effectiveness.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

The only way my planes tend to get much experience is say as the USSR vs Finland in the winter war dragging it out via militia.

The experience gain (and importance of experience) in AoD is so slow (and so low) that it's barely worth a thought. But this can be edited in the db/misc file - which we've certainly done for our online games.

 

[Commander666]

As I understand it, apart the chance of a combat bonus, radars guide fighters/ interceptors on their air superiority mission toward enemy planes and improve AA effectiveness.

I never leave any fighters or interceptors on air superiority mission because that is a sure way to have 2 stacks of enemy fighters chew up your single stack. I find it much safer to micro manage it. So, this contribution of radar is useless to me.

The second contribution - increasing AA effectiveness - I think far more effective is getting a winning air-to-air battle. That doesn't just damage bombers a bit more by some modifier but results in whole units of enemy aircraft being eliminated. Besides - wouldn't it be more effective to invest in extra AA if passive response will be a player's strategy because AA placement is 174 icd versus 346 for radar (Germany 1936, no gearing)... and, at least, one can see it working. And with selective placement of AA it is actually possible to influence where the enemy crosses your border - so creating one of the important conditions for developing a very aggressive and extremely effective air campaign.

Still, as I said, "for flavor" I quite like radar but as per the OT's question do they "make enough difference to be worth building?" I would say "no".

 

[Commander666]

The only way my planes tend to get much experience is say as the USSR vs Finland in the winter war dragging it out via militia.

Not sure I really understand your statement, but if you want to increase skill (and experience) for your aircraft leaders, the very best way is to do ground attack on retreating enemy for as long as you can. It is possible to increase one skill level before enemy even reaches next province. Importantly, there is no noticeable damage occurring to your aircraft as any AA is in your controlled province. This is an excellent way to increase skill quickly for your Superior Tacticians.

The experience gain (and importance of experience) in AoD is so slow (and so low) that it's barely worth a thought. But this can be edited in the db/misc file - which we've certainly done for our online games.

Well, sadly, this seems to be true - so negating all the effort to build up skill. I have experienced far too many air battles where all was equal except my leader had greater skill - but I still came out not a true winner - for me to have much faith in skill for aircraft leaders.