Speed, agility and defense should matter for CAS.

[MinhowMinhow]

CAS should benefit from their stats against ground based AA. No matter how fast, agile or armored is your plane, it will always be shot down, and by the weakest of AA.

This is present since MtG patch, that they changed AA. A tier 1 AA gun could shot down lots of airplanes, even the most advanced ones.

This isn't realistic at all, because speed, agility and armor matters for air to ground missions, even nowadays.

The best design for CAS are the cheapest ones with lots of ground attack, because they don't last versus enemies with AA, like Germany.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

Well, the best CAS are the cheapest ones, they are expendable units.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Is it confirmed that those stats make no difference for CAS or TAC? Even after the latest updates??

 

[vermicious knid]

I assumed air defense was compared to the Air attack of the AA. Is that not the case?

 

[walt526]

I assumed air defense was compared to the Air attack of the AA. Is that not the case?

No, I don't think so. Shamelessly copied-and-pasted from a helpful Reddit post on the topic (we're not allowed to link to Reddit posts, but if you google some of the text it should come up):

The only factors that matter herefore are the planes' number and the average AA. More specifically, higher values increase the potential amount of planes killed for each successful destruction roll. Because the percentage (of kills) is random, even with 9999 AA, there is a chance no planes die on a successful accuracy roll, but the probability becomes so low that eventually you will wipe them out one way or another.

The amount of killed planes naturally has a lot of randomness, but there are a few magic numbers. On each successful accuracy roll, either a random variable which follows an uniform distribution over ℝ ∩ [0,ᵃᵇ⁄₂₀₀] of planes or exactly one plane will die, depending on which is greater. This means that it is impossible to have a division with AA kill on average less than 0.21 planes a day.

Because of the 0.5% fixed percentage, you can theoretically kill thousands of enemy CAS planes in a single battle with the right setup: for example, hold a province with one division of fourteen heavy SPAA thrice upgraded, two infantry, and a support anti-air (~700 AA) plus two divisions of generic 10/0 support anti-air infantry. The 700 AA division skews the average AA to 250 thereon, meaning even one hit is very likely to wipe out hundreds of CAS or possibly even the entire stack. Fresh meat will automatically join the battle to be slaughtered, so you can melt a thousands-strong CAS deathstack. Of course, making an AA division like that is a pretty dumb idea, but just the possibility is kind of stupid.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

No, I don't think so. Shamelessly copied-and-pasted from a helpful Reddit post on the topic (we're not allowed to link to Reddit posts, but if you google some of the text it should come up):

So, is actually random, and really no design (in terms of quality) can change it? This isn't good.

 

[vermicious knid]

No, I don't think so. Shamelessly copied-and-pasted from a helpful Reddit post on the topic (we're not allowed to link to Reddit posts, but if you google some of the text it should come up):

That isn't good. Defeats the main reason for putting armor on your CAS.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

That isn't good. Defeats the main reason for putting armor on your CAS.

And isn't realistic too, CAS aircraft were and are full of armor to resist ground weapons. In the game this isn't represented at all.

 

[Modious]

I'd like to see it tested, the quoted post was just speculation. It's an easy enough test if you really care that much.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

I'd like to see it tested, the quoted post was just speculation. It's an easy enough test if you really care that much.

Well, for my experience, my CAS and TAC don't last so much when fighting against Germany, that fields lots of AA. Even when they are very agile/fast/armored.

 

[Modious]

Well, for my experience, my CAS and TAC don't last so much when fighting against Germany, that fields lots of AA. Even when they are very agile/fast/armored.

That makes sense, the question would be, does fast, agile, heavily armored CAS last longer than slow, lumbering, eggshell thin CAS.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

That makes sense, the question would be, does fast, agile, heavily armored CAS last longer than slow, lumbering, eggshell thin CAS.

This should be relatively easy to test right? Make 2 designs of CAS, one with low defense as possible and one high as possible, save game, compare how many are lost per fight

 

[The Colonel]

It's more tedious than pure fighter testing since you need to also setup armies with stocks of equipment, but yeah still not too bad.

An issue (as someone who has done air testing and limited CAStesting) is that at some point since BBA launched, the way AA damage to planes works seems to have changed, both for naval bombers and CAS, so that rather than more consistent casualties over time, you tend to take no losses for a long time then suddenly lose dozens or hundreds of planes in a single sortie. This makes testing kind of hard and I think gives CAS an advantage if you say just battleplan to cause combats bc it will lead to a lot of bad battles that end quickly (bc disadvantageous for the attacker) so CAS will take relatively few losses.