• 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.

Minodrin

Jäg. Holmberg
15 Badges
Jul 26, 2001
1.367
19
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Cities in Motion
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Magicka
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
I was just thinking. How much has this old bug defined the way our MP games are played today? I have yet to see a serious use of Air-power. How is it with the rest of you. Are the tactical bombing squadrons in full use 24/7?
 
I've seen a (lack) of airpower use myself. I think it's due to the old bugs. The recent thread concerning "200 flotillas of bomber death" was quite a shock.

Another thing I see is a lack of frequency in aircraft use (i.e. not repeat bombing runs) AND a lack of fighters set to intercept missions.
 
Intercept missions

I never set my fighters to intercept missions because they invariably wind up sitting out over a sea province. It doesn't work. So I wound up having to make them land manually (costing half org) then set them back up. So now I just put a fighter in every province along my border, with a group behind them here and there that I can use when someone's planes become a problem.
 
I never set my fighters to intercept missions because they invariably wind up sitting out over a sea province.

That bug has been fixed for awhile (1.03b, I think) - but I it goes to show how a lot of "buggy" aircraft mechanics have caused the veteran players to write aircraft off
 
It's interesting that you can win this game, both in SP and MP, without building a single airplane. The biggest uses I have found are:

1)Trying to take heavily defended mountain provinces (that you can't go around) and send in the tac bombers along with the infantry.

2) Bombing navies (escpecially subs) in port.

3) Bombing a retreating surface fleet that you just beat in ordinary naval combat, thereby sinking it.

Other than that, aircraft aren't very usefull. Pre 1.04 they did serve a small purpose for low-manpower nations, but after manpower costs are cut by 50% this is seldom a reason to build aircraft. I seldom build any, just use the ones I start with. However, I don't realy see any major bugs still present.
 
Other than that, aircraft aren't very usefull.

Yeah...okay

Obviously haven't used a lot of tac/dive bombers as mobile artillery, eh?
 
No it hasn't

Originally posted by Diefledermas
That bug has been fixed for awhile (1.03b, I think) - but I it goes to show how a lot of "buggy" aircraft mechanics have caused the veteran players to write aircraft off

I never used intecept before 1.03b. Maybe they thought they fixed it.
 
> Obviously haven't used a lot of tac/dive bombers as mobile artillery, eh?

Sure I have, it works fine. In one of my recent SP games as Germany, I had a stack with 24 Ar 234B (semi-modern tac) on the east front, it realy worked wonders for me.

But is it worth the cost? Building pre-war or basic tac bombers is most likely not worth it, and the research to get better planes is very expensive. And the amounts of supply it costs to maintain the more advanced tac bombers at 100 strength is staggering. I simply have not found it worthwhile to spend these ICs on tac bombers in a multiplayer game.
 
never used intecept before 1.03b. Maybe they thought they fixed it.

really? I use intercepts constantly and don't get "stuck" away from the base province anymore.

question: Are saying planes intercept out in the channel OR that they fly out in the channel to intercept and stay there?

But is (building aircraft) worth the cost?

depends on your style of play I would say IMHO.