• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Developer Diary | Plane Designer

image.png

Hello, and welcome back to another Dev Diary for the upcoming By Blood Alone DLC and accompanying Patch 1.12! The team has returned from the summer vacation, and we are now back fixing bugs and tweaking the balancing of the new features and focus trees.

Today, we are taking a look at the Plane Designer. As always, any number value that you are going to see in this DD is subject to change.

The Plane Designer became a subject of discussion, both inside the team and in the community, almost as soon as we announced that No Step Back would feature a Tank Designer. We felt that it would mesh well with the rework of the Italian focus tree, not least because the Italian aviation industry was very well developed and produced some of the best combat airplanes of the war - hampered mostly, as Italy so often was, by lacking production capacity.

We also felt that a Plane Designer would help plug some gaps in the lineup of available aircraft. Over the years, many players have commented on the fact that many nations modified their fighters to also be able to carry bombs, or their tactical bombers to also carry torpedoes. One of the big goals of the Plane Designer was to allow for these types of multi-role aircraft.

At the same time, we didn’t want to make these multi-role planes too powerful. Instead, a plane design optimized for a single mission should still be more effective than a multi-role plane. Where multi-role planes offer flexibility, optimized designs offer top performance, if you can afford them.

The basics of the Plane Designer are probably not a surprise for anyone who is familiar with the Ship or Tank Designers. The base is called an airframe, which roughly corresponds to the hulls and the chassis of the ship and tank designers. The Airframes have a number of module slots, where you can put the modules that give the final design its actual stats. There are three different size classes of airframes: Small, Medium, and Large. Small planes also come in a carrier-capable variant of the airframe.

The types of module slots in the Plane Designer are slightly different from the Tank Designer. There are effectively only three types of slots: Engines, Weapons, and Special modules.

Engine modules are perhaps the most straightforward of them. Unlike tanks, where this slot dictates what type of engine the tank uses and a separate stat determines what its speed is, engine modules in the plane designer determine the number and power of the engines mounted on the aircraft. These engine modules produce a new stat called Thrust, while all other modules have another new stat called Weight. These two stats are effectively the limiting factor of what and how many modules you can put on the plane. A design is only legal if Weight does not exceed Thrust (some people might point out that the only planes with a Thrust/Weight ratio of 1 or better in reality are modern, high-performance fighter jets, but these people will be summarily ignored).

Any excess Thrust is converted into extra speed, which is intended to provide a reason not to fill every module slot.

One thing to note here is that jet engines (and rocket engines, for that matter) are part of these engine slots, which means that they are available for all types of planes. This, by necessity, means that Jet Fighters and other jet-powered airplanes are no longer their own unit type - they are now simply fighters with jet engines. Jet fighters will therefore reinforce regular fighter wings, and also that you can now effectively make jet carrier planes, jet CAS, jet heavy fighters etc.with the plane designer.
Or Rocket Naval Bombers, one supposes, if you really hate your pilots on a personal level.
image5.jpg

Weapon modules are also fairly self-explanatory. But beyond providing offensive stats like Air Attack, weapon modules fulfill two other major functions. The first is that the weapons define what type of plane a design ends up being. For this the designer has a Primary Weapon Slot. The module in this slot defines the role of the final design, i.e. Fighter, CAS, Naval Bomber etc.

This is relevant because the weapon modules also unlock what missions a design has available. That means that the strict separation of mission by type of aircraft will be gone. You can now create fighters that can provide ground support, or Strategic Bombers that can do naval strikes, depending on the modules you put on the plane. There are, of course, some restrictions - strat bombers can never mount the modules necessary to unlock air superiority missions, for example.

We still wanted to give you an easy way to classify your designs on a high level and it also makes it a lot easier to tell the AI what a design actually is and how it should be used. Without accounting for doctrines, there are no stat differences between, say, a fighter that has a set of 4 Heavy MGs in the Primary Weapon Slot and bombs in a secondary weapon slot, and a CAS that has the bombs in the primary weapon slot and the MGs in the secondary slot - but one goes into Fighter Airwings and the other goes into CAS Airwings.
CAS planes have a large variety of weapons available to them to attack ground targets.
image6.jpg

There is a full list of weapons, the missions they unlock, and what they classify a plane as if mounted in the primary weapon slot, below (stats omitted because balancing is still ongoing):

ModuleMissions UnlockedType
2x Light MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
4x Light MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Heavy MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
4x Heavy MGAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Cannon IAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Cannon IAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Cannon IIAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
2x Cannon IIAir Superiority, InterceptFighter, Heavy Fighter
Rocket RailsClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Bomb LocksClose Air Support, Naval Strike, Port StrikeCAS
Small Bomb BayClose Air Support, Logistics Strike, Port StrikeCAS
Tank Buster IClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Tank Buster IIClose Air Support, Logistics StrikeCAS
Torpedo MountingNaval Strike, Port StrikeNaval Bomber/Maritime Patrol Plane
Guided Anti-Ship MissileNaval Strike, Port StrikeNaval Bomber/Maritime Patrol Plane
Fixed Explosive ChargeKamikaze StrikesSuicide Craft
Medium Bomb BayClose Air Support, Logistics Strike, Strategic BombingTactical Bomber
Large Bomb BayStrategic Bombing, Port StrikeStrategic Bomber

While some of these weapons are unlocked in the (reworked) Air Tech Tree, some of them are also found outside of it, in a similar manner as the tank weapons are found in various trees. I will note that the total number of techs in the Air tech tree has actually decreased.
A view of the Air Tech tree. It has a total of 28 techs, compared to the old tree’s 38 techs.
image9.jpg

One notable aspect is that a lot of these modules provide different stats only for specific missions. For true multi-role planes to make sense, we wanted to make sure that building a design with a mixed set of missions didn’t make the plane useless in some of them. Hanging bombs off a plane should make it less agile and slower, but a fighter that was able to do CAS missions shouldn’t be useless in air superiority missions. Thus, the weight and agility penalties only apply to the fighter if it is actually on a CAS mission, not if it is on an air superiority mission.

Modifiers only apply to certain missions. Here, the bombs the Stuka carries make it less agile, but the dive brakes give it better air defense
image4.jpg

Finally, we have the so-called “Special” module slots. These are effectively a catch-all term of various different items, a list of which you can find below:​

Armor Plate: Increased Air Defense, reduced range
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks: increased Air Defense, costs Rubber
Drop Tanks: increased range (small airframes only)
Extra Fuel Tanks: increased range, reduced air defense
Dive Brakes: increased air defense, increased naval strike hit chance
Radio Navigation I: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack
Radio Navigation II: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack
Air/Ground Radar: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack, increased naval detection
Air/Ground Radar II: reduced night penalty, increased strat attack, increased naval detection
Air/Air Radar: reduced night penalty when on intercept mission
Air/Air Radar II: reduced night penalty when on intercept mission
Floatplane: increased naval spotting (small airframes only)
Flying Boat: increased naval spotting (medium+large airframes)
LMG Defensive Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x LMG Defensive Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
HMG Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x HMG Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
Cannon Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
2x Cannon Defense Turret: increased Air attack, reduced agility
Recon Camera: unlocks recon mission (LaR only)
Demining Coil: unlocks demining mission (MtG only)
Bomb sights I: increased strat attack
Bomb Sights II: increased strat attack
Non-Strategic Materials: reduced Aluminum cost, reduced air defense

Special Modules are primarily intended to help optimize planes for various missions or give them different niches.

The eagle-eyed amongst you have already spotted that planes now have a surface and sub detection stat. Up until now, planes that were active in a sea zone always provided a flat bonus to the spotting speed of any navies active in the seazone. This will now change, with planes having dedicated spotting stats that determine how well they do with helping the navies spot. There are modules, like the Air-Ground Radar and the Flying Boat hull, which give bonuses to naval spotting.

Vanilla planes have those stats already baked in, with some being better than others - carrier planes are better than their land-based counterparts, naval bombers are better than fighters etc.

To further support this, we are adding two more things: Maritime Patrol Planes as a dedicated unit type and a special Naval Patrol mission for planes with the right modules.

Maritime Patrol Planes are built on the Large Airframe, giving them exceptional range. They are able to mount the whole array of naval bomber weapons, but naval strike is really not intended to be their primary role. Maritime Patrol Planes are meant to help with spotting raiders in the deep ocean, where smaller planes with shorter ranges struggle to provide much mission efficiency.
You can run naval patrol missions with many different types of planes.
image2.png

Finally, let’s talk a bit about art! While we already have a large amount of historical art for various plane types, we also wanted to give you more options to visually distinguish your designs, even if it is just to find the plane design more easily in the production menu. For the tank designer, we split up the existing art and recombined it into various combinations to quickly generate a large number of assets. We realized early on that this wouldn’t work for the plane designer. So instead, we decided to fill in some gaps in the existing art as well as add some art for a number of prototypes that flew but were historically passed over for mass-production.
Here is a partial list of new plane icons coming in BBA. Which one’s your favorite?
image1.jpg

We also decided that we wanted to add more 3d art. Much like the tank designer, you can select these assets when you design the plane. We are adding about 80 new 3d models for planes to the DLC, but more on that in the future!
Here is just a teaser of some of the new assets coming in the DLC:
image7.jpg

That is about it for this week. We hope that you will enjoy playing with the Plane Designer as much as we enjoyed making it. To end this DevDiary on a personal note: The Plane Designer will be my final contribution to Hearts of Iron 4. After close to 6 years on the project, all the way from the early days on Together for Victory, the time has come for me to leave the company and move on to greener pastures. It has certainly been an eventful and productive couple of years, and there are many things that I am very proud of (and a few that I regret - like adding Austria-Hungary as a joke and then finding out that people love monarchism). Working on the Hearts of Iron series has always been a dream for me, since the day I launched Hearts of Iron 1, almost 20 years ago now. Few people can say that they had an impact on a piece of entertainment that has had a similar impact on themselves. But the thing I am most proud of is the team we have built. Hearts of Iron is in very good hands, and there are years of content still to be released. I’m looking forward to it - but, once again, as a player.​

Weird designs that QA came up with:
This single plane outguns an entire tank platoon, unfortunately it can’t ever turn:
image11.jpg


And then we restricted the number of bomb bays you can have on a plane:
image3.jpg

6 engines, 8 cannons, 4 cannons in turrets, and a production cost 50% higher than a strategic bomber. Needless to say, this combo is no longer possible:
image10.jpg


When you look at the Spitfire Mark I’s armament and wonder: but what if…more guns?
image8.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 117Like
  • 77Love
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Special munitions would need to be unlocked by some tech box first, for sure, but munitions in general are already accounted for (inasmuch as they are) by supplies and attrition, so I don't think it would be useful to make special munitions the only sort of munitions that take IC to build... Setting up the necessary special orders, supply routings and use releases for the special munitions to be used, however, seems to me to be just the sort of thing that would take "command points". Don't nukes already work this way? There's a fairly clear analogy there.

Edit: the real practicality of this might depend on whether mission types are expandable to subtypes of the existing types. If so, then some good variants to allow for altitude and munitions variants would be moddable, if nothing else. Otherwise it might just be infeasible.
AFAIK, nuke doesn't need CP to produce or release, and the sorties of bombing mission is too large for CP(capped at 200), but I don't really concern about how the "special" bomb point is produced. I am happy if the dev really implements the special bomb feature to the game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The statement so far was that mission types are determined by the modules (weapons) in the design. They might restrict missions based on the airframe -- do you want light "strategic bombers", or four-engine Flying Fortresses on air superiority? But they might not code a restriction, and just let you fly any plane on any mission, whether or not it will do anything useful.

Thanks for the answer, that the mission types are determined by the modules (weapons) in the design was my current state of knowledge. I would actually prefer a "soft"-penalty for trying unconventional stuff (by the way, the Ju 88 which I would call a "large medium" airframe, was used both as a fighter "Zerstörer" (Ju-88 C) and as CAS (Ju-88 P, with a 7,5 cm gun; this comes quite close to a "Gunship")). Why shouldn't it be possible to go to a B17-size airframe for both missions?


It is completely OK when this unconventional stuff is not the Meta but in a relaxed SP game on regular, they should be somehow useful.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Thanks for the answer, that the mission types are determined by the modules (weapons) in the design was my current state of knowledge. I would actually prefer a "soft"-penalty for trying unconventional stuff (by the way, the Ju 88 which I would call a "large medium" airframe, was used both as a fighter "Zerstörer" (Ju-88 C) and as CAS (Ju-88 P, with a 7,5 cm gun; this comes quite close to a "Gunship")). Why shouldn't it be possible to go to a B17-size airframe for both missions?


It is completely OK when this unconventional stuff is not the Meta but in a relaxed SP game on regular, they should be somehow useful.
They shouldn't create some weird meta but otherwise if I want to go for fighters with heavy frames its my thing and as you mentioned these weird designs often existed for some reason or another.
 
There was an "escort fighter" version of the B-17 built, with even more guns (and gunners), but it had a worse climb rate than the bombers, and was slower once the bombers had let go their payload.
Look up the YB-40 to find more.

Anyway, something I had a thought about... the special modules mentioned, they don't explicitly mention one of the most common things for defensive armament - a tail gunner with a single machine gun.
There is the "LMG Defensive Turret", but... that's not quite the same.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Anyway, something I had a thought about... the special modules mentioned, they don't explicitly mention one of the most common things for defensive armament - a tail gunner with a single machine gun.
There is the "LMG Defensive Turret", but... that's not quite the same.
I completely overlooked that

Hopefully they just did too and will rectify that by release
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
These are all about naval aviation.

1 Can we get seaplane carrier?The professional seaplane carrier was an important naval air force in World War II. Given that we can already get the classification of airships and seaplanes, maybe our hope of getting her is not slim?
2 Cruisers/bb that focus on seaplanes don't seem to get a high bonus, and the bonus position is not quite the same as that of aerial reconnaissance.Maybe we can separate the simple seaplane ejection device from the complex seaplane auxiliary system.
The role of seaplanes in helping ships aim is also not realized (until radar is equipped on a large scale), and the first seaplane of each ship may deserve these rewards.
At present, it is not cost-effective to install seaplanes for the capital ship, which is quite unhistorical.
3 The airship also has an important function of rescuing drowning pilots, which may be included in reconnaissance directly.
4 Small aircraft carriers carrying only fighter / antisubmarine aircraft are also very common in World War II. Can we get it?



By the way: I understand you don't want to complicate equipping every ship with airplanes, but hey, those of us who want to play Nimitz and Yamamoto would love to equip them with seaplanes.It's not important, but it's interesting.Perhaps it is possible to equip her with the default when she is not equipped with the plane manually, and use the manual one when she is manually equipped, so that she can do both.

Again, thank you for your work. Since navy designer and tank designer, I am enjoying hoi4 more and more.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Special munitions would need to be unlocked by some tech box first, for sure, but munitions in general are already accounted for (inasmuch as they are) by supplies and attrition, so I don't think it would be useful to make special munitions the only sort of munitions that take IC to build... Setting up the necessary special orders, supply routings and use releases for the special munitions to be used, however, seems to me to be just the sort of thing that would take "command points". Don't nukes already work this way? There's a fairly clear analogy there.

Edit: the real practicality of this might depend on whether mission types are expandable to subtypes of the existing types. If so, then some good variants to allow for altitude and munitions variants would be moddable, if nothing else. Otherwise it might just be infeasible.
It seems it would be much easier to implement altitude by adding 3-5 engine thrusts stats in the aircraft designer level for different altitudes, than setting up many sub-mission modifiers to simulate how altitude would affect the speed and agility of attacking and defending aircraft with different altitude base performance change module (SuperCharger, GM-1) in different altitudes.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Should there be separate soft and hard attack for planes, like in HOI3?

It seems that if we only have one singular "ground attack" value, then there's not much that will differentiate AT guns and bombs. (Either an attacker with AT guns will be more effective at engaging infantry than an attacker with bombs, or an attacker with bombs will be more effective at engaging tanks than an attacker with AT...both scenarios sound problematic for the game design)
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Should there be separate soft and hard attack for planes, like in HOI3?

It seems that if we only have one singular "ground attack" value, then there's not much that will differentiate AT guns and bombs. (Either an attacker with AT guns will be more effective at engaging infantry than an attacker with bombs, or an attacker with bombs will be more effective at engaging tanks than an attacker with AT...both scenarios sound problematic for the game design)
Sounds like a good idea as it wouldn't really add much complexity while making weapons much more accurate.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope this ultimately leads to naval bombers being weaker or at least more vulnerable than they are right now. Honestly for all the nerfs to submarines I find naval bomber spam by far the more frustrating of the two.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It seems it would be much easier to implement altitude by adding 3-5 engine thrusts stats in the aircraft designer level for different altitudes, than setting up many sub-mission modifiers to simulate how altitude would affect the speed and agility of attacking and defending aircraft with different altitude base performance change module (SuperCharger, GM-1) in different altitudes.
You would need to have different engines giving different relative altitude performance as well, but how would you know at what altitude to compare the combatants? That is what the mission types are for - they each include assumptions about altitude(s) of operation. Giving engine bonuses against particular mission types in this setup would effectively define/be defined by the altitude performance profile.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You would need to have different engines giving different relative altitude performance as well, but how would you know at what altitude to compare the combatants? That is what the mission types are for - they each include assumptions about altitude(s) of operation. Giving engine bonuses against particular mission types in this setup would effectively define/be defined by the altitude performance profile.
You are right the game need to assign what attitude combatants in with different types of mission with different combat tactics (mission subtypes, which should able to unlock by researching air doctrine). But just with subtypes and modifier are unable to simulate the effects of attitude (function similar to terrain but with the effect of design company, which can directly change the stats of the equipment). The game really need an “altitude system” to make an editable / modable altitude feature.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You are right the game need to assign what attitude combatants in with different types of mission with different combat tactics (mission subtypes, which should able to unlock by researching air doctrine). But just with subtypes and modifier are unable to simulate the effects of attitude (function similar to terrain but with the effect of design company, which can directly change the stats of the equipment). The game really need an “altitude system” to make an editable / modable altitude feature.
I would love an editable altitude band system with fully definable missions in-game, but I don't think that is something that is going to happen, at least in this iteration of HoI.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I would love an editable altitude band system with fully definable missions in-game, but I don't think that is something that is going to happen, at least in this iteration of HoI.
Lol, I believe everyone replying in this post or in Suggestion knows that suggestions would very unlikely become reality. The dev team is undermanned, and the game's coding ( terrain modifier can only be able to change the stats of units instead of the equipment the units using during the combat phase) hindered features expansion heavily. I believe 90% of the user suggestions here will not and are unable to implement into BBA. Maybe, some dev can see the conversation here and would eventually implement our feedback in the future, like the flight route.

Here is another very important feature really needs to implement into the game, a simplified switch for every newly expanded feature.

There is constantly a portion of players in this forum opposed any addition of new features from ship designer, though spy system, to tank designer, as those features would complicate the game and make the game more micro-managing or losing its “HOI essence”.

Dev should really consider adding an automatic system for every new managing mechanism ( like spy system, logistics system and etc.) and historical templates for every new designer to allow the player to choose what features to enjoy and what features to neglect (especially during in-game wartime) when playing this game.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Really feel that altitude should be added as a mechanic.

And Air Fleets (Luftflotte). Air Corps and Air Divisions and Air Groups too maybe. Not sure how aircraft were organized really.

Anti-air defense should be more detailed. Split into three altitude levels for guns (low/medium/high). Different guns for different altitude aircraft. Example: Japan couldn't hit high flying American B-29 Super Fortresses. Anti-air guns should have to be produced as equipment and could be moved around your territory. Current static nature doesn't make sense to me.

And Wings and Air Fleets should have Commanders. And Pilots should be special manpower that has to be trained. Was a very big factor in real life.

I hope there's enough slots to make historical aircraft. The Ship and Tank Designer don't have enough slots.

So will flying boats be able to operate from water tiles and/or Ports? Kind of pointless to have them if they can't do that.

Also think there needs to be a specific Escort mission for aircraft.

Think there should be a button that tells your Air Wing to only operate in your actual home territory if the air zone is bigger than your country/extends beyond your borders. This would be helpful for small countries with small numbers of aircraft.

We also should be able to choose location of Airbases.

Would like an auto-CAS land support button for Carriers that have Dive Bombers on them. So they can help your land forces in battles and you don't have to manually park them and micro it.

It should also very much be possible to attack aircraft on the ground and taking off/landing at Airbases. Thousands of aircraft were destroyed this way. This might require Airbases to have buildable defenses (runways, walls, hangars, bunkers, spotlights, radar, flak guns, etc) and require Airbases to be more than a simple Level 1-10. Airbases would have to be specifically built to support large aircraft like strategic bombers. Runway type, capacity, etc.

The Airbases in the Pacific and on tiny islands should be limited in capacity and maybe also type of aircraft they can hold. Also building Airbases and other stuff on islands that are not connected to your home territory should be difficult and require Convoys to transport construction stuff.

Finland should get some kind of mechanic or bonus to hiding their aircraft. They had a relatively small Air Fleet but they hid them in forests and stuff and they were very effective.

Scout Planes are still a total mess and basically broken and need to be redone.

Would be nice for Carrier aircraft combat to get a big improvement. Dive Bombers attack top of ship, can damage certain stuff and penetrate deck especially if unarmored. Dive Bombers do less damage (I think) but are harder to hit though. Torpedo Bombers fly low/slow/perpendicular to ships and are easier to hit but carry bigger explosives. Also can hit certain ship components.

Attacking from Dive Bombers (vertical) and Torpedo Bombers (horizontal) at same time would make it harder for ships to target aircraft (because the ships' guns can't concentrate their fire). Also aircraft attacking from multiple cardinal directions on the map should make it harder for ships to target aircraft.

The way Task Force/Fleet anti-air works should still be reworked and improved. Too simple currently (flat 20% contribution) and unrealistic and causes a bad meta of stacking anti-air on a single big ship. In real life a Task Force/Fleet had lots of smaller ships with lots of anti-air guns on them for protection of the group. The more cohesive (in formation) a Task Force/Fleet is the better the group anti-air protection. If ships are scattered everywhere then the ships won't be able to protect each other well.

A Task Force/Fleet being attacked by aircraft could lower its cohesion (staying in formation) as they try to dodge bombs. This could actually be a toggle setting on the Task Force/Fleet maybe.

That's my very brief general wishlist lol. @Arheo @Archangel85
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If possible, please add specific value against specific targets. WWII have a lot of specific aerial weapon only work very effectively in certain situation.
Like:
MK108 and Schräge Musik mostly and only effective against bomber.
Soviet AG-2 aerial grenades only work very well against enemy fighters from behind.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
If possible, please add specific value against specific targets. WWII have a lot of specific aerial weapon only work very effectively in certain situation.
Like:
MK108 and Schräge Musik mostly and only effective against bomber.
Soviet AG-2 aerial grenades only work very well against enemy fighters from behind.
good idea fren
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
If possible, please add specific value against specific targets. WWII have a lot of specific aerial weapon only work very effectively in certain situation.
Like:
MK108 and Schräge Musik mostly and only effective against bomber.
Soviet AG-2 aerial grenades only work very well against enemy fighters from behind.
Specific damage against specific targets seems too complicated really. Reusing the soft and hard attack mechanics could perhaps work with making soft attack good against fighters, hard attack good against bombers and then scale it for the in between sized planes. Soft attack and hard attack for ground attack seems like a good idea anyway.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Specific damage against specific targets seems too complicated really. Reusing the soft and hard attack mechanics could perhaps work with making soft attack good against fighters, hard attack good against bombers and then scale it for the in between sized planes. Soft attack and hard attack for ground attack seems like a good idea anyway.
Mostly it should act very similar to the hard attack soft attack mechanics. But if the game just use the same hard attack soft attack mechanics, it seems there would be an exploit to just use bomber size plane as interceptors, as the defensive turret would just deal great damage to fighter size plane. It seems that a more complex mechanics is required.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Mostly it should act very similar to the hard attack soft attack mechanics. But if the game just use the same hard attack soft attack mechanics, it seems there would be an exploit to just use bomber size plane as interceptors, as the defensive turret would just deal great damage to fighter size plane
I'd imagine that wouldn't be a very good idea. There are more stats than just attack, and the complete lack of agility that I expect a large airframe to have would probably mean they'd suffer a ridiculously low kill/death ratio. I don't know exactly how things would be calculated, but it would probably end up with a similar situation heavy fighters are in right now
 
  • 1
Reactions: