Sorry, but no. Cag aircraft are purpose designed by WW2 with more structural reinforcement and arresting gear. You can't easily land a P47 on a carrier nor is it designed to handle the force of a catapult assisted take-off.
-
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.
It's more about the technological knowledge and general advancement in aircraft design and not about the actual plane. Techs are also about theoretical and practical breakthroughs
Yeah, but why does it require multi role to researc next carrier fighter? Why cant I advance from previous carrier fightet tech? Or advance from int tech into carrier fighter tech?
While there is some merit to the first part of your post, the second proposition is not really convincing for me. Having built a Mustang in no way helps constructing a Thunderbolt, as they are specialized for different tasks ; though both can perform each task (escort, air superiority, strafing ...), they do so at different effeciency.
- 1
And then there are the bombers. The A6 Intruder carried more ordinance than any other active service bomber than the B52 while I was in the navy. It was definitely not a CAS. Try taking off or landing a P51 on a carrier and they will be calling man overboard. It really requires specialized equipment and training to operate off a carrier.
- 1
I guess the question is:
What is the design target now?
The topic derailed a bit, or?
So what is the point now? What do u want to achieve?
A stats adjustment for fighters? Readjustment for CAG research?
I lost the track, so sorry for asking
What is the design target now?
The topic derailed a bit, or?
So what is the point now? What do u want to achieve?
A stats adjustment for fighters? Readjustment for CAG research?
I lost the track, so sorry for asking
- 2
- 1
Some data... III. Reich, UK, USSR and USA... I've put togetether images showing their interceptor and fighter designs as of in DH full vanilla, 1941 scenario.
Not shown in the tables: Interceptors get a 25% bonus vs TAC, STRAT (and NAV?).
The markings in green (best) and red (worst) are NOT comparisons between interceptors and fighters (which can be easily seen enough) but of interceptors in comparison between the different countries, vice versa for fighters.
I still can't see a reason why those stats would need a change.
But while looking at those comparisons, it would be sad not to state a few observations:
First, sorry, for showing old INT and FTR for the USSR, not my doing, data was directly taken from DH full vanilla, 1941 scenario.
Thus by far the cheapest planes are on the USSR side.
Most versatile fighter surely on the German side, soft and hard attack boni due to land (!) doctrines, surprising close 2nd USA.
UK planes with the best org and morale but also the most expensive ones.
Considering that for every country eg Ftr-7 is completly identical in its base values and only with a different name tag, I am positively surprised about the differences which we can see here (mainly due to differences in land-doctrines etc.).
Perhaps that could be accentuated even a bit more all over the board.
Not shown in the tables: Interceptors get a 25% bonus vs TAC, STRAT (and NAV?).
The markings in green (best) and red (worst) are NOT comparisons between interceptors and fighters (which can be easily seen enough) but of interceptors in comparison between the different countries, vice versa for fighters.
I still can't see a reason why those stats would need a change.
But while looking at those comparisons, it would be sad not to state a few observations:
First, sorry, for showing old INT and FTR for the USSR, not my doing, data was directly taken from DH full vanilla, 1941 scenario.
Thus by far the cheapest planes are on the USSR side.
Most versatile fighter surely on the German side, soft and hard attack boni due to land (!) doctrines, surprising close 2nd USA.
UK planes with the best org and morale but also the most expensive ones.
Considering that for every country eg Ftr-7 is completly identical in its base values and only with a different name tag, I am positively surprised about the differences which we can see here (mainly due to differences in land-doctrines etc.).
Perhaps that could be accentuated even a bit more all over the board.
Last edited:
- 1