|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 2, 2020 19:05:53 GMT -6
Dive bombers did not pull out of their dives, they leveled out after releasing the bomb or bombs, Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Dive bombing in a fighter, without dive brakes, you're going to release a lot higher and reach a much higher speed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 2, 2020 19:35:19 GMT -6
Dive bombers did not pull out of their dives, they leveled out after releasing the bomb or bombs, Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Dive bombing in a fighter, without dive brakes, you're going to release a lot higher and reach a much higher speed. fighters would lower their landing gears and that slowed them down, then they pulled back on the stick and leveled out.
|
|
|
Post by dontmajorchem on Dec 6, 2020 18:57:18 GMT -6
I'm playing in the 60s atm and I noticed that the enemy carriers are exclusively using fighters. They don't seem to be doing very well, though that could be because 90% or more are shot down before they can attack
Also, my torpedo bombers almost never actually land a hit on enemy ships, so I've just replaced them with dive-bombers. This kinda backfired on me because I couldn't kill the enemy BCs with bombs and they suck a carrier
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Dec 8, 2020 17:57:45 GMT -6
I would not mix Dive bombers and fighters but more Dive bombers and Torpedo bombers. Since while Fighter bombers are nice and have a role in and of their own to give Fighters a more extensive set of mission capabilities. A Dedicated Bomber/Attacker is nice just to have an aircraft which has the primary function of ruining a surface targets day, rather than that being secondary to air combat in the case of a Fighter.
Since Bombers and Attackers can usually carry more ordnance for a given size while fighters seem to historically be a bit larger in order to carry similar payloads. But that was just sort of glancing at something like an A-4,A-3,and A-7 versus their contemporary jet fighters. Though in the era of propellers its just more ordnance.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Dec 8, 2020 22:40:26 GMT -6
One important question is: In this game's rules do later fighters actually use 'dive bombing' game mechanics or do the say on IIRC glide bombing? I agree that later on real life fighters can have dive brakes, which is a major part of dive bombing designs. The question is about the game mechanics. How good/bad are the so called "glide bombing" runs from fighters in comparison with dive bomber diving attack runs in the actual game? I am very curious whether it is viable/possible to swap all of my dive bombers with glide bombing capable fighters in very late games. This way I will only have fewer aircraft models and higher mission flexibility. Given that aircraft development gets slower and slower as new technologies emerge, the fewer models of aircraft I have to develop, the faster I can develop them.
|
|
|
Post by dontmajorchem on Dec 9, 2020 8:01:27 GMT -6
One important question is: In this game's rules do later fighters actually use 'dive bombing' game mechanics or do the say on IIRC glide bombing? I agree that later on real life fighters can have dive brakes, which is a major part of dive bombing designs. The question is about the game mechanics. How good/bad are the so called "glide bombing" runs from fighters in comparison with dive bomber diving attack runs in the actual game? I am very curious whether it is viable/possible to swap all of my dive bombers with glide bombing capable fighters in very late games. This way I will only have fewer aircraft models and higher mission flexibility. Given that aircraft development gets slower and slower as new technologies emerge, the fewer models of aircraft I have to develop, the faster I can develop them. As far as I can tell, fighters' glide bombing is significantly less accurate than dive bombing, even in the late game. An advantage of glide bombing though is that sometimes near misses are converted into torpedo hits after the bombentorpedo tech unlocked, which dive bombing can't do. Also, in the late game, fighters can carry a larger bomb than dive bombers. I've been meaning to try out exclusively fighters, because as you mentioned, it allows a lot of flexibility and you can upgrade them every 2-3 years. I've noticed that in one of my late game wars, the Soviets used exclusively fighters on their carriers, but they seemed pretty ineffective and they probably only landed under 10 hits in the 3 years I was at war with them. This could be because almost all of their fighters were shot down before they reach my carriers though
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Dec 9, 2020 11:58:56 GMT -6
How good/bad are the so called "glide bombing" runs from fighters in comparison with dive bomber diving attack runs in the actual game? I am very curious whether it is viable/possible to swap all of my dive bombers with glide bombing capable fighters in very late games. This way I will only have fewer aircraft models and higher mission flexibility. Given that aircraft development gets slower and slower as new technologies emerge, the fewer models of aircraft I have to develop, the faster I can develop them. As far as I can tell, fighters' glide bombing is significantly less accurate than dive bombing, even in the late game. An advantage of glide bombing though is that sometimes near misses are converted into torpedo hits after the bombentorpedo tech unlocked, which dive bombing can't do. Also, in the late game, fighters can carry a larger bomb than dive bombers. I've been meaning to try out exclusively fighters, because as you mentioned, it allows a lot of flexibility and you can upgrade them every 2-3 years. I've noticed that in one of my late game wars, the Soviets used exclusively fighters on their carriers, but they seemed pretty ineffective and they probably only landed under 10 hits in the 3 years I was at war with them. This could be because almost all of their fighters were shot down before they reach my carriers though Please let know how your experiments go though, I am very curious
|
|