Is there a way to change the default automatic deployment target of ships?
- 1
-
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.
Was wondering for a while if this
applies purely to theoretical scenario (where you can run TACs from carriers on strat bombing missions), or is it actually a more universal modifier?wiki said:
- 1
On the production screen you can choose which fleet the ship will join once produced. This will cause it to deploy as close as possible to that fleet.
It's a dropdown near the name of the ship.
- 1
But is there any way to choose the default deployment target?
- 1
Not that I know of. I make a reserve fleet, place that where I want my ships to deploy and then make sure to assign all new builds to that fleet.
Occasionally I forget and one or two ships still appear at the default deployment but it works well enough for me.
- 2
- 1
According to my old notes, it is not just theoretical. From a carrier wing's perspective the reduced visibility should apply to any enemy wing that can perform naval strikes -- as well as to wings doing strat bombing from the perspective of non-carrier wings.
Though that was patch 1.7.1. I don't know if anything has changed since. If you mod the visibility reduction up to 100%, it should be easy to test.
Edit: The rule looks unchanged in 1.11.9 (and it includes kamikaze missions too, not just naval strike)
Last edited:
- 2
Interesting. So, it would not apply to carrier CAS on ground support missions? Still, seems like the best choice for carrier vs carrier battles - not that there are (m)any in average game.
- 1
Who gets the captured stuff you get with maintenance companies?
Is it the units who captured the stuff who get it, or does it all go through the normal deployment (reinforcement) channels?
Is it the units who captured the stuff who get it, or does it all go through the normal deployment (reinforcement) channels?
- 1
The units get the equipment directly. If they have too much equipment as a result or something they can't use, it flows back to the country stockpile.
- 4
I suspected as much.
I also suspect there's an off-by-one error in the maintenance company code somewhere, because I see many of my units with maintenance companies have 13 artillery pieces instead of the 12 they're supposed to have.
I also suspect there's an off-by-one error in the maintenance company code somewhere, because I see many of my units with maintenance companies have 13 artillery pieces instead of the 12 they're supposed to have.
- 1
When you release a country, what's it's ideology? If I, as Germany, conquer Sweden and then release it, what will Sweden's ideology be?
Also: Have they changed air experience recently? I feel like I'm getting less than before.
Also: Have they changed air experience recently? I feel like I'm getting less than before.
- 1
What do fighters use weapons and agility for? The tooltip says that agility is important for interception. So weapons is for superiority?
Do they fight bombers with agility and other fighters with weapons?
Do they fight bombers with agility and other fighters with weapons?
- 1
It's not quite so simple. Agility is useful for fighting any enemy plane. So are weapons. The wiki has an overview of the air combat calculations. If the target has more agility than the attacking aircraft, the attacker loses a lot of damage (as much as two-thirds). If the attacker can at least match the defender's agility, there's no penalty -- but also no bonus for greatly exceeding the target's agility. On the other hand, air attack (guns) / air defense is also a multiplier to damage. Ideally you'd have both.
If you're intercepting bombers, then your fighter's agility is almost certainly higher than the defending bomber's, even at their base values. (See the in-game stats or the wiki for the numbers.) So increasing that even more doesn't help any more against the bombers; the agility factor is already as good as it gets. Having less agility than your bomber will reduce damage, though. (That's more likely when "bomber" means CAS than when it's STR.) Ability increases are more likely to make a difference against enemy fighters, since their values will be close to start with. Bombers have high air defense, so you want as much air attack as you can bring for that job in order to score useful damage.
Speed and detection (radar, patrols in the air zone, flying over friendly territory) help to "disrupt" enemy bombers, which means to send them home without completing their mission, as opposed to "damage", which means shooting them down and destroying some planes.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
So, ideally you have fighters on superiority and heavy fighters on interception in each region to deal with the bombers?
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Yes.
You could also try juggling normal-gun fighters on superiority with up-gunned fighters on intercept., but the game is *not* optimised for that.
Wrt. variants, engines increase damage done in aerial combat and decrease damage taken in same, so this is usually the #1 priority.
Reliability is nice, but if you're at war, accidents will be the smaller part of your losses.
Single-engine aircraft really need range (fighter, CAS and NAV. Or just look at the icon.). Remember, mission efficiency scales linearly with how much of the air region the wing can cover.
Weapons are a two-edged sword. They increase damage done, whether to air or ground, but reduce agility and reliability. The reduction in agility means they get less extra air damage than indicated and also they suffer more air damage in return. And the loss of reliability cuts into how many range-upgrades can be applied.
Iirc, anti-fighter fighters benefit marginally from the first 1-2 weapon upgrades, but those upgrades really help against middling aircraft... So maybe 5 engine, 5 reliability, 2-3 range and 1-2 guns?
Anti-bomber heavy fighters should probably also hesitate with up-gunning since they have more firepower and less agility to begin with. On the other hand, heavies don't need extra range, so there's more room for guns. Maybe 5 engine, 5 reliability, 3 guns and keep reliability high?
- 3
Do anti-bomber heavy fighters really need agility to deal with bombers? Even more than guns?
- 1
They do not usually operate in a vacuum; i.e. there will usually be [heavy] fighters in the air too. Speed and agility affect the odds quite a bit.
Against bombers, well, they'll shoot back too. STR especially has a very high air attack, so you really don't want to make it easy for them. Heavy fighters only dodge about 1/3rd of shots from STR, so there is plenty of use for more agility.
TAC, CAS and NAV have less air attack but more agility. Thus, extra agility also make a significant difference here.
But overall, there is a trade-off between shooting down more bombers per day and having a better trading-ratio. If we focus on shooting them down quickly, they will shoot us down more quickly too, and the increases are not balanced; our loss rate increases more than theirs. But if we focus on efficient trading of aircraft ICs, more bombing goes through, which may cost more ICs than speeding up...
So do they really need agility? No, but it may or may not be an advantage for them.
Finally, don't forget that souping up engines costs nothing, while up-gunning costs both agility and reliability. Regardless of your strategy, buying 3 engine upgrades may prove more usefull than 1 gun + 1 engine + 1 reliability.
- 2
- 1
That's not a bad idea if you can afford it, at least on the surface. There are (as always) subtleties. (Probably getting too deep for Quick Questions, but we're here, so...)
- There's no difference in the air combat mechanics between superiority and interception. There was some past description of interception preferring bombers and superiority preferring escorts (enemy fighters in the air zone), but as I recall there's no difference in the current code when it comes to deciding which planes fight which other planes. The advantages of interception are saving fuel use and different bonuses from doctrine research.
- HFTR are more expensive (in production IC) than FTR. So, it's not a question of 100 FTR on AS compared to 100 HFTR on Intercept. You'll have fewer HFTR for the same cost, so it's really comparing the effectiveness of 100 FTR AS + 100 FTR Int vs 100 FTR AS + 85 HFTR. The cost difference also matters in the war of attrition when you're trading off those HFTRs for enemy fighters and bombers. HFTR have to not just kill more FTR than they lose, they have to kill more IC than they lose. Same with STR; those are twice the cost of HFTR, so you still can't afford to lose more than 2:1 against them.
- Detection matters in air combat. The total aircraft that can engage is three times the number of visible enemy planes. And planes are allocated against enemies proportional to their visibility. Finally, escorts (superiority fighters in the same zone as planes with ground targets) are automatically 100% visible. (It's their job to attract enemy fighters.) So, even on the interception mission, the interceptors will often wind up fighting enemy FTR.
- Interceptors don't fly unless there are detected enemy bombers. This can mean leaving half your fighters on the ground while the AS fighters get chewed up by the enemy air. Note that there are doctrines that reduce bomber visibility.
Secret Master did a lot of testing of FTR vs HFTR, including bomber interception, some time back. AFAIK, those results are still valid. As I recall, the short version is that HFTR work out better than FTR when (and only when) intercepting unescorted bombers.
The biggest advantage of HFTR is range, leading to higher mission efficiency in large air zones, particularly outside Europe (primarily the Pacific, but also Asia and eastern Russian). This can make them cost-effective where they wouldn't be in small air zones. The biggest disadvantage (IMO) is the extra research time. Research slot-days is one of the most valuable resources in the game.
- 2
- 1
I’m having trouble integrating Mengkukuo as Japan due to not being able to send them lend lease. They’re landlocked, but I have annexed territory next to them and have an unbroken connection to my capital via railroads and ports. Is this WAD?
- 1