Questions on aircrafts

[denisKhan]

Hello, I was thinking on what should my soviet air force be composed of in hoi4 when I stumbled on the use of heavy fighters and strategic bombers: Should I build them? Do strategic bombers make noticeable damage to enemy infrastructure and industry? How should I use heavy fighters?
Finally, according to you: what should my soviet air force be made of?

 

[Bryartuck]

A lot depends on whether you're playing SP or MP. You will get different answers for both. I don't play MP myself, so my answer refers strictly to SP.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with strategic bombers as USSR. You have too many more important things to focus your industry, resources and research on.

Heavy fighters can be useful if you can spare the research for them. They will typically do better against enemy bombers than light fighters. Their longer range can be useful in the huge air zones in Russia as well.

 

[Le Creep]

I would recommend mostly focusing on normal fighters. You have a national focus which gives a 50% reduction to light aircraft which I would use to get 1940 fighters quite early. When you're sure you have enough fighters for air superiority you could build some tactical bombers. CAS have very little range so they're not great for Russia.
As for strategic bombers and heavy fighters: since you're mostly going to be on the defensive I would ignore heavy fighters. They might be okay if the enemy uses strat bombers. Strat bombers could be okay but I would rather leave bombing to the Allies and focus more on defense.

 

[CharlieFox]

In SP I would focus on fighters and CAS. It is unlikely that Germany will push you back from Poland so range should not be much of an issue (I don't think Poland or Romania Air-zone's are that big) . Also I wouldn't be surprised if by the time your war with Germany starts they have already lost all or most of their planes to the allies

 

[Dalwin]

My personal feeling on the Soviet air force is 60-70% light fighters and 30-40% CAS. Nothing else at all.

 

[redrum68]

My personal feeling on the Soviet air force is 60-70% light fighters and 30-40% CAS. Nothing else at all.

This is about what I go towards as well. I think this applies to most European powers as well since the air zones are small and having air superiority is the most important goal of an air force.

For non-european powers, you tend to need heavy fighters because of the increased range to be effective since the air zones outside of Europe are so huge. So for Japan I tend to do heavy fighters and tactical bombers instead of fighters and CAS.

 

[Meglok]

@denisKhan In 1.3.3 SP vanilla you could probably go battlefield support doctrine and go straight CAS with Russia. It is likely the Germans will have few if any fighters left by the time you fight unless you have really shoved the sliders right to boost the Axis. Even then a 20/80 ratio of fighters/CAS should be fine. If you are going into Asia TAC have better efficiency due to range, several hundred are usually enough.

You will need LOTS of fighters though when you fight the Allies for world domination. By then you will need several thousand fighters, a few thousand CAS, LR fighters to protect from Allied strats and nukes, and NAV to help the CAS go after the Allied fleets. Wouldn't bother with Strat bombers except to deliver nukes.

In MP it really depends on your opponents and if you have any allies.

Add Aluminum in Asia.

 

[Meglok]

This is about what I go towards as well. I think this applies to most European powers as well since the air zones are small and having air superiority is the most important goal of an air force.

For non-european powers, you tend to need heavy fighters because of the increased range to be effective since the air zones outside of Europe are so huge. So for Japan I tend to do heavy fighters and tactical bombers instead of fighters and CAS.

Early researched (2 50% research bumps from focus) 1940 SE Fighters with engine/range boosts and reliability 80 are fine for Japan in her early wars with the UK, NEI, AST, and maybe US, if you can scrounge the air xp. You are basically designing a Zero. Heavies are ok, they are just slower to produce and will get chewed if they run into s/e fighters. And mean another research line because you HAVE to research fighters for carrier fighters.

Do agree with TAC, the range efficiency penalties to 1936 and 40 CAS in Asia hurt. I don't even bother with land CAS with Japan, unless maybe if I am planning to fight in Western Europe. Almost to the point where I am going all fighter/NAV on my new carriers to save research and production lines.. Just keep the starting CAS on old carriers to provide ground support in invasions.

In SP 1.3.3 it is all about maximizing your production line efficiency and scrounging for enough CIC to import Aluminum from Russia, or taking the Aluminum from Russia.

Which of course leads me to.... Add Aluminum in Asia.

Edited to remove foolishness

 

[Dalwin]

Early researched (2 50% research bumps from focus) 1940 SE Fighters with engine/range boosts and reliability 80 are fine for Japan in her early wars with the UK, NEI, AST, and maybe US, if you can scrounge the air xp. You are basically designing a Zero. Heavies are ok, they are just slower to produce (although why they take the same resource amounts as a s/e fighter is beyond me), and will get chewed if they run into s/e fighters. And mean another research line because you HAVE to research fighters for carrier fighters.

Do agree with TAC, the range efficiency penalties to 1936 and 40 CAS in Asia hurt. I don't even bother with land CAS with Japan, unless maybe if I am planning to fight in Western Europe. Almost to the point where I am going all fighter/NAV on my new carriers to save research and production lines.. Just keep the starting CAS on old carriers to provide ground support in invasions.

In SP 1.3.3 it is all about maximizing your production line efficiency and scrounging for enough CIC to import Aluminum from Russia, or taking the Aluminum from Russia.

Which of course leads me to.... Add Aluminum in Asia.

OK there are a couple of mistakes in there. Heavies do not take the same amount of resources as light fighters. In fact a closer study of it reveals a few interesting bits.

One thing to always keep in mind on production costs is that you have to look at the total and not at the per factory per day numbers even though the latter are displayed so predominantly in the interface. It is more than just the heavies being produced slower since each one spending longer on the assembly line means each is responsible for a bigger piece of resources.

For example, 1936 light fighters and heavy fighters do each take 1 point of oil and rubber per factory. But since the heavies have a production cost of 28 as opposed to 24, each heavy fighter takes 1/7th more oil and rubber than do the lights. Now look at aluminum where the base cost is 3 for the lights but only 2 for the heavies. That comes across as 2 2/7 for the heavy compared to 3 for the light. For someone like Japan who is aluminum starved the 1936 heavies are actually more economical than the 1936 lights. For Germany who cares more about rubber or oil and not really at all about aluminum the lights are more economical.

There is another important trend to notice when comparing these two. Later tiers of light fighters use an additional point of oil per factory per day, but for heavies it is instead an additional point of aluminum. So with the 1940 or later models lights become more cost effective per plane for Japan but heavies are for Germany if oil is by then their limiting factor. Lights are still better for Germany if rubber is the more precious resource.

Now none of that analysis looks at all at the combat values. That is simply a cost per piece study.

 

[Meglok]

OK there are a couple of mistakes in there. Heavies do not take the same amount of resources as light fighters. In fact a closer study of it reveals a few interesting bits.

One thing to always keep in mind on production costs is that you have to look at the total and not at the per factory per day numbers even though the latter are displayed so predominantly in the interface. It is more than just the heavies being produced slower since each one spending longer on the assembly line means each is responsible for a bigger piece of resources.

For example, 1936 light fighters and heavy fighters do each take 1 point of oil and rubber per factory. But since the heavies have a production cost of 28 as opposed to 24, each heavy fighter takes 1/7th more oil and rubber than do the lights. Now look at aluminum where the base cost is 3 for the lights but only 2 for the heavies. That comes across as 2 2/7 for the heavy compared to 3 for the light. For someone like Japan who is aluminum starved the 1936 heavies are actually more economical than the 1936 lights. For Germany who cares more about rubber or oil and not really at all about aluminum the lights are more economical.

There is another important trend to notice when comparing these two. Later tiers of light fighters use an additional point of oil per factory per day, but for heavies it is instead an additional point of aluminum. So with the 1940 or later models lights become more cost effective per plane for Japan but heavies are for Germany if oil is by then their limiting factor. Lights are still better for Germany if rubber is the more precious resource.

Now none of that analysis looks at all at the combat values. That is simply a cost per piece study.

Well, perfect example of why posting after 3 beers at bowling is not always a good idea. I knew this and realized how stupid what I wrote was as soon as I read your post. Even looked on wiki to compare the costs before I posted but thinking of costs over production time never happened. I consider my hand slapped.

But I even with 3 beers I believe we need to Add aluminum in Asia.

 

[redrum68]

OK there are a couple of mistakes in there. Heavies do not take the same amount of resources as light fighters. In fact a closer study of it reveals a few interesting bits.

One thing to always keep in mind on production costs is that you have to look at the total and not at the per factory per day numbers even though the latter are displayed so predominantly in the interface. It is more than just the heavies being produced slower since each one spending longer on the assembly line means each is responsible for a bigger piece of resources.

For example, 1936 light fighters and heavy fighters do each take 1 point of oil and rubber per factory. But since the heavies have a production cost of 28 as opposed to 24, each heavy fighter takes 1/7th more oil and rubber than do the lights. Now look at aluminum where the base cost is 3 for the lights but only 2 for the heavies. That comes across as 2 2/7 for the heavy compared to 3 for the light. For someone like Japan who is aluminum starved the 1936 heavies are actually more economical than the 1936 lights. For Germany who cares more about rubber or oil and not really at all about aluminum the lights are more economical.

There is another important trend to notice when comparing these two. Later tiers of light fighters use an additional point of oil per factory per day, but for heavies it is instead an additional point of aluminum. So with the 1940 or later models lights become more cost effective per plane for Japan but heavies are for Germany if oil is by then their limiting factor. Lights are still better for Germany if rubber is the more precious resource.

Now none of that analysis looks at all at the combat values. That is simply a cost per piece study.

Good analysis. Though another thing to remember is while aluminum is Japan's biggest issue, it also struggles with oil at least until you would be able to conquer a good portion of SU or the middle east. So even 1940 fighter vs heavy fighter, resource wise heavy fighter still has a significant advantage from the oil standpoint (1 vs 2) even if it cost a little more aluminum due to slightly higher production cost (26 vs 30).

In my experience, its very difficult for Japan to avoid going heavy fighters and only use fighters. But I'd be interested if others have successfully done that and how they over came the necessary resource needs while having to put a lot of effort into maxing range as well.