• 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:
With all the tank, ship and now plane designs in HOI4, can we please save design templates between games? It's a bit tedious rebuilding the same templates each game.

It would save a lot of hassle if we could import them from another game and unlock once we have the exp
That could also solve the problem of people not wanting to make designs as some historical ones could already be saved.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
How do you suggest NAV's actually went about doing what you suggest? You can't exactly send out an entire flight of NAV's to randomly search for targets with no clue if there are even anyone around. Even if you spread them out then that means only the lone plane that got lucky would be the one able to actually attack.

Maritime surveillance mission could make sense being able to find ships, but there were still some limitations in that planes only had a vague idea of where they were so even if they found something so would it be difficult to coordinate a strike just by that.

As for ground striking units not in combat so would it only make sense against targets that are moving as stationary units can hide from air rather easily.

Of course you can send out an air wing of naval bombers on a search and destroy mission. It might not be very fuel effective, that's why you usually let a few patrol planes do the initial scouting first, but from a logical perspective it works. On top of that, the naval strike mission in the game consumes fuel each day, even if no targets where attacked, which also fits this explanation. Then we also have radar which improves detection and gives the air wing a clue of where a potential target could be. Other airplanes, such as fighters on air superiority mission, might also help with the detection. There are a lot of logical explanations to why planes can detect and attack ships independently. Being forced to used ships for detection is extremely unrealistic.

Take a look at the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. In both of these battles the was no ship-to-ship detection and the aircrafts managed to detect targets and coordinate attacks by themselves.

Just to be clear, I agree with you that it would make sense to require detection before sending planes out on a strike mission, what I don't like is that ships must be used for the detection. If it proved too much work to rewrite the system to support independent naval patrols, then I think it's better to just abstract the naval patrols into the naval strike mission. Otherwise this is just an unnecessary and unrealistic nerf to any nation that wants to achieve coastal superiority through its air force.

Regarding the ground strikes, obviously the terrain type would have a huge impact on the efficiency. For example, it's quite simple to detect tanks sitting in an open field, while it's much harder to detect infantry sitting in dense forest. But these kinds of indirect strikes would aim more towards blindly attacking known positions hoping to hit something rather than directly hitting a target. This applies not only to aerial bombardment but artillery shelling as well and is used in real life in order to soften up a front before an attack. For example, the USN performed a 3-day bombardment of Iwo Jima before the actual invasion and the Soviets bombarded with some 9000 guns before starting the invasion of Berlin.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Of course you can send out an air wing of naval bombers on a search and destroy mission. It might not be very fuel effective, that's why you usually let a few patrol planes do the initial scouting first, but from a logical perspective it works. On top of that, the naval strike mission in the game consumes fuel each day, even if no targets where attacked, which also fits this explanation. Then we also have radar which improves detection and gives the air wing a clue of where a potential target could be. Other airplanes, such as fighters on air superiority mission, might also help with the detection. There are a lot of logical explanations to why planes can detect and attack ships independently. Being forced to used ships for detection is extremely unrealistic.

Take a look at the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. In both of these battles the was no ship-to-ship detection and the aircrafts managed to detect targets and coordinate attacks by themselves.

Just to be clear, I agree with you that it would make sense to require detection before sending planes out on a strike mission, what I don't like is that ships must be used for the detection. If it proved too much work to rewrite the system to support independent naval patrols, then I think it's better to just abstract the naval patrols into the naval strike mission. Otherwise this is just an unnecessary and unrealistic nerf to any nation that wants to achieve coastal superiority through its air force.

Regarding the ground strikes, obviously the terrain type would have a huge impact on the efficiency. For example, it's quite simple to detect tanks sitting in an open field, while it's much harder to detect infantry sitting in dense forest. But these kinds of indirect strikes would aim more towards blindly attacking known positions hoping to hit something rather than directly hitting a target. This applies not only to aerial bombardment but artillery shelling as well and is used in real life in order to soften up a front before an attack. For example, the USN performed a 3-day bombardment of Iwo Jima before the actual invasion and the Soviets bombarded with some 9000 guns before starting the invasion of Berlin.
Honestly, outside of having a slow detection progress bar similar to ships on a patrol mission I'm not sure there is any good solution.

Requiring a naval battle to engage shafts smaller nations that can't afford to build many ships, yet with the current system NAV almost makes a navy obsolete in the first place since you can effectively cripple it with rather little investment or counter-play by comparison.

Either scenario favors one side or the other too much unless there is a total rework to both AA and naval strike missions.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Looking at the weapon <-> mission type list I have to ask: What about A2A missiles? Esp. Germany used them to great effect* against strat bombers.
I feel these should be an option for the "Intercept" mission if not "Air superiority" (I guess the latter would require a guided variant).

*Which of course, like basically all late war developments of Germany, didn't have any real effect on the course of the (air) war due to low numbers.

This, by necessity, means that Jet Fighters and other jet-powered airplanes are no longer their own unit type
You say it like that was a bad thing. I always found it odd that "jet fighters" were no "fighters"...


Anyways, it's sad to see you go. I wish you all the best for your future elsewhere :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I like it in principle, it's following the same basic structure as the armoured vehicle developer and warship developer.

However; I can't help but feel that it needs more modules that are early, late 30s technology. Such as:
  • Reflector gunsights
  • Radio sets
  • Cannon armament
  • Tracer ammunition
Given that some nations and some companies were lagging in these technologies for their aircraft early in the war, and that it put their crews at a disadvantage in combat.

And it would be great if aero engines, both inline & radial, could also be researched incrementally in parallel with basic generations. And if a turbocharger was an expensive module (for high altitude performance) that also took a lot of researching.

It would also be great if (as with warships); an aircraft manufacturer (designer) of a certain technological generation could have different attributes. Examples:
  • Supermarine - Extra agility & speed, extra production cost
  • Hawker - Lower production cost & time, extra durability, ease of maintenance
  • Messerschmitt - Lower production cost & time
  • Heinkel - extra range
  • Focke-Wulf - Extra speed & ease of maintenance
  • Macchi - Same as Supermarine
  • FIAT - Lower production cost & time, extra durability
  • Reggiane - Extra agility
  • Lavochkin - Same as Hawker
  • Polikarpov/Mikoyan-Gurevich - extra speed & production cost & maintenance
  • Yakovlev - Extra agility, low production cost & ease of maintenance
Etc.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Baking in stats has already failed badly for ships. Even after years, vanilla ship stats are not in line with their corresponding MtG designs: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/List_of_default_ship_variants. Why not provide air frames with a fixed module configuration?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Any new art for French airforces?

Edit: Wrote this reply before reading the rest of Dev Diary. Archie, you will be missed. For many years I spent every wednesday frantically refreshing the forums in hopes of a new content related post by you. Good luck with whatever your plans are and thanks for your contribution to my favourite paradox title.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The Hurricane is a pre-existing fighter, not a dedicated fighter-bomber design. I was questioning if any were designed explicitly for both roles rather than "cool, we can fit some bomb/rocket racks here on this fighter"
The Hawker Typhon was originally designed to be an interceptor, but never could compete with the Spitfire IX performance released around the same time to front units. Its role was therefore changed.
The Tempest, because of its speed at lower altitudes, was used as fighter against the Me262, apart from its role as fighter bomber.

Historically, fighter plane designs that did not meet specifications would still be apt fighter bombers. Germany made use of the E/7 version of the Me109 as fighter bomber on the Eastern Front, and the same could be noted about the Me110 C-7.

The same principle also applies to modern jet planes to a certain extent
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Will subs be nerfed? One big advantage the subs had was that they could outrange any naval bombers but with the introduction of strategic bombers with radars and torpedoes, where will the subs hide? Will they be useless?
Looks like you just rediscovered what happened to German subs in the Atlantic.

My golden times are over.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Of course you can send out an air wing of naval bombers on a search and destroy mission. It might not be very fuel effective, that's why you usually let a few patrol planes do the initial scouting first, but from a logical perspective it works. On top of that, the naval strike mission in the game consumes fuel each day, even if no targets where attacked, which also fits this explanation. Then we also have radar which improves detection and gives the air wing a clue of where a potential target could be. Other airplanes, such as fighters on air superiority mission, might also help with the detection. There are a lot of logical explanations to why planes can detect and attack ships independently. Being forced to used ships for detection is extremely unrealistic.

Take a look at the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. In both of these battles the was no ship-to-ship detection and the aircrafts managed to detect targets and coordinate attacks by themselves.

Just to be clear, I agree with you that it would make sense to require detection before sending planes out on a strike mission, what I don't like is that ships must be used for the detection. If it proved too much work to rewrite the system to support independent naval patrols, then I think it's better to just abstract the naval patrols into the naval strike mission. Otherwise this is just an unnecessary and unrealistic nerf to any nation that wants to achieve coastal superiority through its air force.

Regarding the ground strikes, obviously the terrain type would have a huge impact on the efficiency. For example, it's quite simple to detect tanks sitting in an open field, while it's much harder to detect infantry sitting in dense forest. But these kinds of indirect strikes would aim more towards blindly attacking known positions hoping to hit something rather than directly hitting a target. This applies not only to aerial bombardment but artillery shelling as well and is used in real life in order to soften up a front before an attack. For example, the USN performed a 3-day bombardment of Iwo Jima before the actual invasion and the Soviets bombarded with some 9000 guns before starting the invasion of Berlin.

Honestly, outside of having a slow detection progress bar similar to ships on a patrol mission I'm not sure there is any good solution.

Requiring a naval battle to engage shafts smaller nations that can't afford to build many ships, yet with the current system NAV almost makes a navy obsolete in the first place since you can effectively cripple it with rather little investment or counter-play by comparison.

Either scenario favors one side or the other too much unless there is a total rework to both AA and naval strike missions.
This is kind of a tricky issue and you both have valid points.
Pretty much everyone agrees that NAV is OP and needs to be nerfed to kill off annoying cheese strats where you replace your enitre navy with them.
But we don't want to go too far and make them useless either.
Honestly balancing has been one of the tickiest things with this game. Despite the devs' best efforts until reccently its been kind of a teeter-totter situation where something was either godly or useless. I still remember the old meta:
Airforce-CAS
Navy-Battleships
Army-20w, 7 INF+2 ART
 
  • 4
Reactions:
One thing I would really like is to add more icons for prototype aircraft or things that never existed so we can lean into the RP in single player.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This is kind of a tricky issue and you both have valid points.
Pretty much everyone agrees that NAV is OP and needs to be nerfed to kill off annoying cheese strats where you replace your enitre navy with them.
But we don't want to go too far and make them useless either.
As the Channel Dash proofs sinking a battleship with NAV wasn't that easy, to quote:
Operation Fuller had failed, a British destroyer had been severely damaged and 42 aircraft had been lost in 398 RAF fighter, 242 bomber and 35 Coastal Command sorties.
So no, lots of NAV shouldn't be enough to sink fleets as long as some measures are taken to defend, be that AA on the ships or friendly fighters.
How about reducing the damage NAV inflict on ships quite a bit if enemy fighters and/or high AA rating are in the mix, but increasing the odds of them inflicting critical hits? So NAV have a hard time sinking protected ships but can weaken them with crits, meaning, unless you capitalize on this with your own fleet you are just keeping a few enemy dockyards busy, but if you have your own surface fleet NAV will soften the enemy up for you.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
As the Channel Dash proofs sinking a battleship with NAV wasn't that easy, to quote:

So no, lots of NAV shouldn't be enough to sink fleets as long as some measures are taken to defend, be that AA on the ships or friendly fighters.
How about reducing the damage NAV inflict on ships quite a bit if enemy fighters and/or high AA rating are in the mix, but increasing the odds of them inflicting critical hits? So NAV have a hard time sinking protected ships but can weaken them with crits, meaning, unless you capitalize on this with your own fleet you are just keeping a few enemy dockyards busy, but if you have your own surface fleet NAV will soften the enemy up for you.
Fully agreed

I think a lot of the thinking that led to the...overeffectiveness of land based TAC and NAV in the current meta came from the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, but not only were they attacked with a ridiculous number of bombs (that scored a really pathetic amount of hits, just those hits were all critical), but the British were almost entirely unprepared, and their movements were well known far before the attack

So that being said, there probably should be one way to hit ships with planes without an active fleet engagement: If your intel/radar level is high enough to spot them without a fleet, you should still be able to hit them
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
the Japanese aircraft that attacked Prince of Wales and Repulse, were informed of the ships' position by a submarine that had spotted them.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
If you want more consistency in the game design it would make a ton of more sense to allow close air support to also attack ground targets without an ongoing ground battle.
It's quite telling that your arguments for game design consistency start and end with buffing air power yet more with extra capabilities and completely ignore naval artilllery unable to shoot and damage neither planes on the fields, nor the fields and the infrastructure itself, nor even attack the ground targets which you seem to be in favor of.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
the decision for the planes not to be able to spot for themselves at all is just simply bad, can t say anything else.
there is an obvious balance problem, but this "solution" makes no sense at all, and really f***s with anyone without a major navy or ships to lose.
what is the original problem in the balance?
besides the damage, literally the number of attacks by the planes are off the grid. planes attack ships easily 5/10 times as much as irl.
why?
because ships in the game are incredibly slow. in the real life, ships could already cover large distances before even being detected and attacked, and here, they get immediately detected and attacked. so the primary problem is that planes attack more often than irl, while ships are much-much slower
planes need basically a huge nerf to either spotting speed or number of attacks against ships, but tying naval attacks to navies is just a bad choice, and it will bring the pain balance-wise. so from this point onwards, i basically can t attacks ships with hungary, unless one of your noob allies manages to spot them with their ships? what??
i can already see how the system will have to be cheesed with sending in convoys, and then the other side would purposefully not attack convoys, etc. this idea won t go down well with the playerbase in the longterm

just take real life examples please: the channel dash of the german bb duo managed to cover most of the channel, the probably most guarded piece of water of ww2, before even being noticed. the actual spotting was done by radars and planes. and to the shitshow above: yes, planes were just often sent out to find their targets, and no, if someone else spotted it for them, based on location, speed and direction, they had a decent chance to actually find something. please learn more about the actual details of these engagements, literally everything is documented

so please don t do this. huge nerfs to spotting and damage make a lot of sense, but not this. land based radars alone could detect ships, not to mention planes....
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
As the Channel Dash proofs sinking a battleship with NAV wasn't that easy, to quote:

So no, lots of NAV shouldn't be enough to sink fleets as long as some measures are taken to defend, be that AA on the ships or friendly fighters.
How about reducing the damage NAV inflict on ships quite a bit if enemy fighters and/or high AA rating are in the mix, but increasing the odds of them inflicting critical hits? So NAV have a hard time sinking protected ships but can weaken them with crits, meaning, unless you capitalize on this with your own fleet you are just keeping a few enemy dockyards busy, but if you have your own surface fleet NAV will soften the enemy up for you.
I'm not sure I'd pick the Channel Dash as a prime example. From what I remembered reading about it wasn't the Brittish response slow, poorly communicated between branches and poorly organised in a rush when word finally reached coastal command at which point the Germans had already sailed through the bulk of the channel?
 
The Hawker Typhon was originally designed to be an interceptor, but never could compete with the Spitfire IX performance released around the same time to front units. Its role was therefore changed.
The Tempest, because of its speed at lower altitudes, was used as fighter against the Me262, apart from its role as fighter bomber.

Historically, fighter plane designs that did not meet specifications would still be apt fighter bombers. Germany made use of the E/7 version of the Me109 as fighter bomber on the Eastern Front, and the same could be noted about the Me110 C-7.

The same principle also applies to modern jet planes to a certain extent
That's kind of what I remembered. Aside from being more agile the Spitfire's Merlin engine simply outperformed the Typhoon's Sabre engine at the typical altitudes the Germans were fought at and thus relegating it to a more secondary role.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: