There are a lot of modules that affect agility, so making a real max-agility plane does require some thinking and deliberate decision making.Looks great! But shouldn't there be an armor stat?
The trade off between things like armor and range+agility was very important during the war (think of the Zero forgoing armor for range) and should be represented.
This was a deliberate choice to avoid making modules that would be considered "must-haves", given how highly the current meta values agility (even if we changed the impact of agility behind the scenes). If you look at the historical developments, agility lost value while speed gained value as the war progressed. We wanted to represent that.I'm not a huge fan of losing the "armor/agility/reliability/range" stat choices, honestly. I know they'll probably be covered to some degree in the modules but that's always a lot more finnicky.
Also bothers me that we'll never be able to build a plane that has better agility than the airframe default, as I'm understanding it? Will that be an absolute cap?
1. This was discussed and voted down for the same reason that we decided not to add them to the plane designer in the first place.Looks very interesting! Some questions:
1. I find it unfortunate that you excluded transport planes from the designer, mainly because transport planes have quite bad range and it would be nice to upgrade it. Maybe you could atleast add upgrade options for the transport planes, in the same way as we can upgrade mechanized infantry with army experience?
2. Is there any penalty to the mission efficiency for multi-role planes assigned to multiple missions at the same time? For example, would a fighter-bomber assigned to air superiority and close air support run both missions at the same time on full efficiency?
3. I find it very weird and unlogical that naval patrols can't spot independently as that is pretty much the whole purpose of doing that mission. Is there any chance that this could be changed? For example, the naval patrol would do the spotting without ships, and then the strike force would attack the target?
4. Could you please allow nations to use the plane and tank pictures of other nations? For example, when playing as Sweden, I research my own planes and tanks but I'm forced to use that boring generic picture, while it would be awesome if I could for example use the picture of German planes and tanks?
2. An airwing only ever runs one mission, even if several are selected. It only runs CAS missions if there are battles going on etc. So having the Air Superiority mission active actually means that an air wing would never do any other missions (since they can always run air superiority). We discussed this back and forth and decided that this was the best approach (since that is how the game already works and there are a lot of assumptions built around it in other parts of the game).
3. It was one of the things where we designed it to work like that, then took a look at the code and realized that it was not a very trivial thing to change.
4. We are considering that but have not implemented it yet.
We considered both options and decided that separate airframes were less messy to implement. This does mean that conversions of land-based planes are not possible. One of the reasons was that a tailhook module would effectively just turn into a module tax for carrier planes, a module that you always have to take.Hello,
Does this mean that there is two airframes available for each small plane tech ? Not a module like a tailhook when you get aricraft carriers ? So you can't create a naval version from a land base aircraft by adding specific hardware but you have to redesign the whole plane ?
I had a design where we integrate a 3d-design software to be able to sculpt the bolt with the locking lugs, but then found out that our programming department is staffed with cowardsgun designer when?
Yes.@Archangel85 Given recon planes only increase the spotting of normal ships, does that mean land based bombers can't attack ships without a fleet to support them?
Welcome! Rocket Engines will still not use any fuel. This is a deliberate design choice, like it was in vanilla. There will be a new loading screen (and it looks awesome!), but I din't think it will be in the next DD.Hello, first time commenting on a Paradox forum, just wondering if the rocket interceptors now actually use fuel like every other aircraft, or if they are still an odd exception (as well as the 100% interception rate against anything that flies if optimized)? Also was curious about some more loading screen art in the next development diary, anything ahistorical such as an Operation Sealion in a ruined London battle taking place alongside Italian troops?
We discussed this early and decided against it, because it would make those modules extremely powerful and likely lead to a flying boat meta. While I don't have a problem with that, others do.I see also, another question. for the floatplane and the flying boat special modules, will it affect aircraft ability to land on the naval base? Because if i remember there's a guy who wants that the floatplane/flyingboat can land on the naval base since in the pacific only a small airbases can be found if aircraft designer become the next feature in the next dlc
- 15
- 2
- 2
- 2
- 1
- 1