Should fighters be stronger than interceptors in a brawl?

[TK3600]

This post is a discussion, not a suggestion yet. I want to hear more from others before seriously proposing.


In general air superiority fighters are better than interceptors 1 to 1. They tend to be more armed againat fighters, better armored, compared to interceptors. Interceptors tend to be lighter, faster. In game, the stats are reversed. Interceptor is tougher to damage, deals more air to air damage, is cheaper, fighter's only saving grace is can pound ground in a pinch. Fighter is somewhat underpowered.

You might ask wont that make fighters OP? They can already pound ground better, now you make them air to air king.

Not quite. Intercetor should be cheaper, meaning they are meant to be better bang for the buck. Cost can be rebalanced to fit the role.

Second, interceptors get 50% dmg boost vs bombers. Meaning even with lesser air attack, it still intercept better than fighters.

What do you guys think?

 

[son of liberty]

My understanding is this: Interceptors are designed to achieve and maintain control of the aerial battle space. Fighters are multipurpose aircraft that handle multiple roles. They can fight dogfights and attack ground targets fairly well. But they are not as good at air supremacy as Interceptors neither are they as good as CAS against ground targets. They are the light aircraft version of the tactical bomber which can perform close air support but not as well as a dedicated CAS aircraft. They can perform logistical, installation, and strategic bombing but not as well as a dedicated strategic bomber. They can also attack naval targets but not as well as a dedicated naval bomber. So, no. Imo, fighters should not get dog fight bonuses against Interceptors. Jmo, ymmv

 

[Altruist]

interceptors get 50% dmg boost vs bombers.

It's "only" 25%.

Concerning the topic thread:

Should fighters be stronger than interceptors in a brawl?

Nope. Interceptors are highly specialized aircraft for airfights and airfights only, paying for it with range and an almost total lack of being able to do anything else. Obviously they should excell at least in their highly specialized role.

Or seen from a different perspective:
As long as I am thinking in every new game again wether to go for interceptors OR for multi-role-fighters... game balance seems to have been achieved. It is never a no-brainer for which design to go.

 

[TK3600]

It's "only" 25%.

Concerning the topic thread:

Nope. Interceptors are highly specialized aircraft for airfights and airfights only, paying for it with range and an almost total lack of being able to do anything else. Obviously they should excell at least in their highly specialized role.

Or seen from a different perspective:
As long as I am thinking in every new game again wether to go for interceptors OR for multi-role-fighters... game balance seems to have been achieved. It is never a no-brainer for which design to go.

Interceptor is generally no brainer though. Unless very niche case.

 

[OsirisReborn]

i always have both, but i dont keep building INT much past 1940
the INT have one job and with good airbase/radar web + rebase/air scramble they are very effective
the later tech trees with rocket INT make this even more of a one trick pony and u need even more airbases and radar

the FTR protect my bombers i either stack them in (eww) or set them on grnd support in same hex, everyone flies from same base idc if its overstacked
the AI basically has hyper dimensional aircraft and can teleport in from anywhere

i dont think anything is OP, only way i can get really good odds is if i have numerical advantage regardless of what vs what
ofc if anything tries to bomb the honeland without either FTR or INT protecting them, i will shred them

 

[TK3600]

Let me explain. Fighters IRL can be categorized as 3 weight class, light, medium, heavy.

Light is interceptor. It is a light aircraft that is low on range, inexpensive, usually lightly armed and lightly armored, highly agile.

Medium is the air superiority fighters. Their airframe is reinforced to carry bombs, and tend to carry heavier armaments. They also have more range, heavier engine for higher altitute operation.

Heavy fighters are the type that are heaviest armed, very powerful engines. They give up some agility for heavy weaponry to kill bombers at high altitute.

Now lets look at game units.

Interceptor: great at air brawl, weak range, hard counter bombers, weak ground attack.

1. It has low range, low cost, which means light airframe.
2. It deals extra damage to bomber only, which implies it carry heavy weapon like auto cannon, that is efficient vs armored bomber but not light fighters.

But light airframes are ill suited for autocannon. The ammo is limited against evasive target, and take weight from machines guns, which are better vs light targets. With inefficient load out it should be weak in air to air? Not quite.

3. It has higher air attack than multi-role in addition to bonus bomber damage.

So somehow using a light airframe, it carry heavy anti bomber weapon, but also carry more anti fighter weapons than multirole medium fighter, yet this heavier armament do not translate to ground attack. And despite light air frame, it is better armored against ground and air threat.

This is just an impossible configuration.

 

[Lord Rommel]

The question is: What is the balance target?
U can argue with the ingame models in all directions.

For me in DH interceptors are the air-to-air combat experts that can dominate the sky.
The "multirole fighters" on the other side are multi-mission aircraft that can do a bit aircombat, a bit bomber stopping and a bit ground combat.
So from such a design u can now think about IC adjustments and/or stats adjustments.

To be fair I think the entire 2-fighter-setup is always a bit difficult so we had a good additional reason to add our long range figthers to TRP so we worked on a "triangular design"

 

[Pasha]

The question is: What is the balance target?
U can argue with the ingame models in all directions.

For me in DH interceptors are the air-to-air combat experts that can dominate the sky.
The "multirole fighters" on the other side are multi-mission aircraft that can do a bit aircombat, a bit bomber stopping and a bit ground combat.
So from such a design u can now think about IC adjustments and/or stats adjustments.

To be fair I think the entire 2-fighter-setup is always a bit difficult so we had a good additional reason to add our long range figthers to TRP so we worked on a "triangular design"

It's been 20 years, but didn't an early version of HOI2 have Heavy Fighters as a unit? And then I think they were replaced with the escort fighter brigades.

 

[OsirisReborn]

It's been 20 years, but didn't an early version of HOI2 have Heavy Fighters as a unit? And then I think they were replaced with the escort fighter brigades.

yes, way back when
i still make air fleets like this, the brigades dont cut it

 

[Lord Rommel]

It's been 20 years, but didn't an early version of HOI2 have Heavy Fighters as a unit? And then I think they were replaced with the escort fighter brigades.

Yes. It was part of an early HoI II version.
I used them here because they are "my" example of roles.

So to add any sort of balance I think it would useful to think of the basic concept and the assigned roles. Should INT dominate air to air combat? What is the function of the Multirole? ectpp.

With the answers u can now look into the DH situation and think of adjustments that are needed.

 

[son of liberty]

It's been 20 years, but didn't an early version of HOI2 have Heavy Fighters as a unit? And then I think they were replaced with the escort fighter brigades.

I remember when the change was first made, I originally made fighters integral to my wing design especially CAS but even for tacs adopting a 3x1 bomber to fighter ratio later 3x2 before eventually dropping it all together and just having Interceptor or fighter wings run air superiority over target areas instead. Jmo ymmv

 

[OsirisReborn]

i guess bottom line; INT are def, and FTR are off or maybe u could call them "multi role"
INT really do shine on def, u get airbase, radar, + vs bombers, and generally your best ace

edit: i should add on games where i tried to min/max and only build FTR, using FTR to defend vs large bomber offensive, they do struggle a bit
and the docs are a pain too, altho not as bad as realizing u need all those STR docs to move to modern air war

 

[son of liberty]

If playing a major except Germany and Japan, I always build both. Int are better in the defense. As Germany, I only build int until barbarosa is nearly done. As Japan only ftr for range in China and the pacific

 

[Altruist]

So to add any sort of balance I think it would useful to think of the basic concept and the assigned roles. Should INT dominate air to air combat? What is the function of the Multirole? ectpp.

To be honest, I am actually quite fine or shall I say satisfied with what DH has to offer with multi-role-fighter and interceptor.

I said already above that I, indeed, have to think every time again about the decision... which implies that I do see it as a decision:
either multi-role-fighter OR interceptor.
Even for a major country with exceptional good tech teams like Germany. It is rather easy to research both... until 1940. Then I start to feel the pressure that it would had been better to go the one or other way.

Let me explain why I always again find it difficult to decide between those 2 models:
1) Game-wise it is good to force the player to make decisions in the tech tree.
2) In the core role: defense of the air space, interceptors are superiour to multi-role fighters... so easy choice.
3) Except in those regions of the world where provinces are more distant to each other... for some countries it is just due to this one reason better to choose the fighter which comes with longer range.
4) Interceptor are better in air fights, yes, but once you have reached air superiority, your interceptors become basically useless. Fighters not.
5) Fighters and the officers you attach to them, gain experience and skill level much faster than interceptors. This really is handy and a big boost. (When fighters are assigned to attack stray or fleeing troops, they accumulate experience at an astonishing rate.)
6) For Germany the choice should be obvious: interceptors. Lots of enemy aircraft to fight, rather small distances between provinces in Europe. Except...
so easy the choice is not: Mobility focus gives you rather early also additional soft and hard attack for fighters which make them even more interesting. If you can't resist the Africa campaign, there fighters are much better than interceptors, the latter basically useless. Vs the USSR you face a severe lack of air ports, so either you build lots of them or, soon enough, you are happy that you did also buld fighters (but still start to struggle with the additional needed research to keep them uptodate).

As long as the decision feels so difficult even when playing Germany... the balance looks correct to me. One of the instances I'd say gameplay needs and balance trumps historical accurateness.

Adding a 3rd design, especially when not a completly optional but perhaps an even tactically needed one, overburdens research even for the majors and even more so for all other countries. Great thing for mods, but IMHO no good decision for vanilla.

 

[TK3600]

To be honest, I am actually quite fine or shall I say satisfied with what DH has to offer with multi-role-fighter and interceptor.

I said already above that I, indeed, have to think every time again about the decision... which implies that I do see it as a decision:
either multi-role-fighter OR interceptor.
Even for a major country with exceptional good tech teams like Germany. It is rather easy to research both... until 1940. Then I start to feel the pressure that it would had been better to go the one or other way.

Let me explain why I always again find it difficult to decide between those 2 models:
1) Game-wise it is good to force the player to make decisions in the tech tree.
2) In the core role: defense of the air space, interceptors are superiour to multi-role fighters... so easy choice.
3) Except in those regions of the world where provinces are more distant to each other... for some countries it is just due to this one reason better to choose the fighter which comes with longer range.
4) Interceptor are better in air fights, yes, but once you have reached air superiority, your interceptors become basically useless. Fighters not.
5) Fighters and the officers you attach to them, gain experience and skill level much faster than interceptors. This really is handy and a big boost.
6) For Germany the choice should be obvious: interceptors. Lots of enemy aircraft to fight, rather small distances between provinces in Europe. Except...
so easy the choice is not: Mobility focus gives you rather early also additional soft and hard attack for fighters which make them even more interesting. If you can't resist the Africa campaign, there fighters are much better than interceptors, the latter basically useless. Vs the USSR you face a severe lack of air ports, so either you build lots of them or, soon enough, you are happy that you did also buld fighters (but still start to struggle with the additional needed research to keep them uptodate).

As long as the decision feels so difficult even when playing Germany... the balance looks correct to me. One of the instances I'd say gameplay needs and balance trumps historical accurateness.

Adding a 3rd design, especially when not a completly optional but perhaps an even tactically needed one, overburdens research even for the majors and even more so for all other countries. Great thing for mods, but IMHO no good decision for vanilla.

You would be wrong to research both even if you can. You pick one as outdated, then build it cheaply. You convert to the main up to date expensive one.

As for adding heavy fighter... I am not advocating that. It was merely to illuastrate my point, of how interceptor makes no sense.

But I am not against adding a 3rd option either. Just remove escort fighter research. If you are concerned of research burden. Make multirole unlock escort brigade. Merge heavy fighter with night fighters. There, solved.

 

[TK3600]

Does fighter really gain exp faster?

 

[son of liberty]

Does fighter really gain exp faster?

Only because fighters don't just perform air superiority missions. I also use them to attack ground forces and even ships.

 

[OsirisReborn]

You would be wrong to research both even if you can. You pick one as outdated, then build it cheaply. You convert to the main up to date expensive one.

As for adding heavy fighter... I am not advocating that. It was merely to illuastrate my point, of how interceptor makes no sense.

But I am not against adding a 3rd option either. Just remove escort fighter research. If you are concerned of research burden. Make multirole unlock escort brigade. Merge heavy fighter with night fighters. There, solved.

i always research both, they do diff tasks
the rocket and turbine trees sort of demand having both or you will lose alot of your off power
better just not to over produce def fighters (INT) build the groups u need to cover your main industry and naval bases
i assume u mean solely building INT, that works but its limited, especially on attack
if u just skip INT your FTR will struggle to defend critical targets at home
i do however also skip the escort fighter tree
i directly stack cas with ftrs and if theres heavy resistance the TAC attack the same targets and hide behind the cas groups and their fighters
i just cant justify the loss of range and when they get caught by enemy INT, they get shredded anyway
same for NAV, if theirs danger good chance my INT can reach it too

theres always the arguement that some countries CANT build both but whats the point of that? u either have to mil control all the larger countries or at some point a huge red blob comes out of the fog of war and its game over

 

[son of liberty]

Honestly, I used escort fighters with tacs and some navs. Not in the Pacific but, in the European theater of operations? Hell yeah.

 

[TK3600]

The other reason for fighter is for carriers. But then why cant int also lead to carrier fighters? Makes no sense.