|
Post by t3rm1dor on May 30, 2023 9:28:05 GMT -6
This is something that happened in 2 as well, but finishing my first run (1890, what an epic campaign ) my experience with late game aircraft is a bit disappointing, specially considering how expensive they are. SAM are still an incredible counter (how can two missiles shot down three aircraft? Dispersion in latter aircraft should be a thing) and CAP also do a very good job in shooting down any aircraft. While aircraft is a necessity, it seem much more cost effective at countering enemy attacks than in projecting your own power. Compare to also missiles they aren't as cost effective bc late aircraft cost a lot. There is also the issue of overkilling targets when others are fleeing the scene. Do my observations match your experiences? As it currently stand the peak of aircraft power is 1930 when CAP and AA is the less effective, but after that the ability to score kills gets degraded each passing year.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on May 30, 2023 16:48:10 GMT -6
Playing a bit more, I'm starting to wonder if late aircraft are bugged in someway; dive bombers and medium are in my eyes getting more missile hits than attack aircraft or LFC when facing AA. A MB even managed to get a torpedo though Sam !
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 30, 2023 18:34:51 GMT -6
My observations so far have only been via small and weaker nations where fleet battles and carrier battles are rare or simply don't happen. Late game I find aircraft carriers and even aircraft in general are only there to mop things up. Most battles are effectively over before aircraft even get in the air thanks to fleets coming into missile range almost immediately after spawning.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on May 31, 2023 7:19:48 GMT -6
My observations so far have only been via small and weaker nations where fleet battles and carrier battles are rare or simply don't happen. Late game I find aircraft carriers and even aircraft in general are only there to mop things up. Most battles are effectively over before aircraft even get in the air thanks to fleets coming into missile range almost immediately after spawning. From playing with bigger fleets the initial missile engagement can be very deadly but with multiple task forces or big ones it is just the first act. But even in missiles aircraft are lacking, even when shooting then they aren't as reliable as close range medium Sams, which I think is the best weapon system currently game.
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on May 31, 2023 17:43:46 GMT -6
I've been having a hard time getting my escort jets and some of my attackers in, they abort their strikes before they actually get to the target. Must be running out of fuel due to waiting to coordinate. I've wanted to pull my hair out when my escorts abandon my 40 jet attack strike to get destroyed to a man. I've also noticed DB and TBD deliver more missiles to target, and glide bombing seems to be really inacurate compared to dive bombing.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 31, 2023 19:24:57 GMT -6
My observations so far have only been via small and weaker nations where fleet battles and carrier battles are rare or simply don't happen. Late game I find aircraft carriers and even aircraft in general are only there to mop things up. Most battles are effectively over before aircraft even get in the air thanks to fleets coming into missile range almost immediately after spawning. We have an update in internal testing that increases the initial starting ranges for (especially later game) engagements.
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 31, 2023 20:39:35 GMT -6
My observations so far have only been via small and weaker nations where fleet battles and carrier battles are rare or simply don't happen. Late game I find aircraft carriers and even aircraft in general are only there to mop things up. Most battles are effectively over before aircraft even get in the air thanks to fleets coming into missile range almost immediately after spawning. We have an update in internal testing that increases the initial starting ranges for (especially later game) engagements. That sounds great.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 10, 2023 7:10:25 GMT -6
this mostly stems from rather weak armament of the aircraft in question, and the now nerfed aircraft
Bombs have been massively nerfed and because they all carry AP bombs, that cannot penetrate more than 4" of deck armor, you wont do anything to most BBs
A jet attacker carrying a single missile is also unlikely to do much, while a strike of 30 missiles with 20 escorts to defend them sounds impressive, you can fit that amount of missiles on a cruiser, and the likelihood of doing much damage is low The issue really stems from aircraft not having a way of dealing reliable consistent damage. the optimal way to fix this is to allow jet attackers to carry 2-4 MASMs
single greatest tech in the game is capability for torpedo bombers to carry two torpedoes, before that aircraft really are quite meh alongside nerfs to early aircraft/torpedo bombers.
TLDR nerf to biplanes/early aircraft, the early torpedo bombers now suck accuracy wise. Massive nerfs to dive bombers, they went from 6,5-7" pen with 1400 lb AP bombs in rtw-2 patch 1,25 to 3,5-4" pen in RTW-3 this is a downgrade of almost 3" penetration and means about 80% of battleships, and all new battleships, are immune to AP bombs and as a result they take no damage from them. Lack of ability to carry HE bombs Large bombs lack damage against all targets. Late game they lack the firepower necessary to kill a battleship as their missile armament is simply too weak.
And notably of all A single carriers airgroup of 102 aircraft in active service including a 47k carrier to carry the 102 jet aircraft, costs a combined 3,410 per month.
Or about equivalent to having three missile destroyers under construction at once at all times, or maintaining two newly built 70k ton SAM equipped battleships, or maintaining about 30 3800 ton missile destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 11, 2023 14:21:15 GMT -6
this mostly stems from rather weak armament of the aircraft in question, and the now nerfed aircraft Bombs have been massively nerfed and because they all carry AP bombs, that cannot penetrate more than 4" of deck armor, you wont do anything to most BBs A jet attacker carrying a single missile is also unlikely to do much, while a strike of 30 missiles with 20 escorts to defend them sounds impressive, you can fit that amount of missiles on a cruiser, and the likelihood of doing much damage is low The issue really stems from aircraft not having a way of dealing reliable consistent damage. the optimal way to fix this is to allow jet attackers to carry 2-4 MASMs single greatest tech in the game is capability for torpedo bombers to carry two torpedoes, before that aircraft really are quite meh alongside nerfs to early aircraft/torpedo bombers. TLDR nerf to biplanes/early aircraft, the early torpedo bombers now suck accuracy wise. Massive nerfs to dive bombers, they went from 6,5-7" pen with 1400 lb AP bombs in rtw-2 patch 1,25 to 3,5-4" pen in RTW-3 this is a downgrade of almost 3" penetration and means about 80% of battleships, and all new battleships, are immune to AP bombs and as a result they take no damage from them. Lack of ability to carry HE bombs Large bombs lack damage against all targets. Late game they lack the firepower necessary to kill a battleship as their missile armament is simply too weak. And notably of all A single carriers airgroup of 102 aircraft in active service including a 47k carrier to carry the 102 jet aircraft, costs a combined 3,410 per month. Or about equivalent to having three missile destroyers under construction at once at all times, or maintaining two newly built 70k ton SAM equipped battleships, or maintaining about 30 3800 ton missile destroyers. Very well put - I agree that the massive cost for the performance giving is another huge downside of aircraft. It is really a matter of aircraft currrently lacking the punch to make then as effective as they should be.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Jun 11, 2023 14:36:07 GMT -6
While I haven't gotten to use them yet, I am curious as to everyone's thoughts on why this apparent nerf is? Patch 1.26 of RTW2 optimally balanced dive bombing aircraft performance, or at least was supposed to. Why weren't these values simply ported directly into RTW3?
Have things been tweaked to encourage missile-armed surface action, meaning more use with all the new late-game design options? Or is it something else unintentional?
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 11, 2023 16:18:36 GMT -6
While I haven't gotten to use them yet, I am curious as to everyone's thoughts on why this apparent nerf is? Patch 1.26 of RTW2 optimally balanced dive bombing aircraft performance, or at least was supposed to. Why weren't these values simply ported directly into RTW3? Have things been tweaked to encourage missile-armed surface action, meaning more use with all the new late-game design options? Or is it something else unintentional? I hope it is a case of things not working as intended in regards to the low pen of bombs. There are also other elements like torpedo doing less damage than 2 (early aviation is still probably the peak even with the low accuracy), and late game SAM'S are brutally effective while jet aircraft too costly (and using bombs with then is very ineffective). Also considering how well missiles perform and the proximity in battle generator encounters, I could definetly see missiles still dominating with significantly more powerful planes, assuming operation cost remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 11, 2023 17:50:28 GMT -6
I just finished my first run as Britain, and in my war with Germany in 1969, aircraft were brutal, both for and against me. SAMs definitely did a lot of damage, but in one engagement my last remaining strike carrier (60K-odd displacement, 100 aircraft - it had an armoured deck which I was testing to see if it helped with damage resistance*) hammered the opposition with repeated strikes. In the opening engagement of the war I'd lost my main cruisers and a number of destroyers (and one of my two large carriers - mostly to enemy aircraft), and had to lean heavily on my carriers (a second large carrier was commissioned a few months into the war, thankfully) to carry me through. Air damage is a bit random - some engagements aircraft are brutal, others they're less effective - but I feel this isn't implausible.
I'm not suggesting there isn't room for improvement (and the tweaks to have battle start further apart will be most welcome) but I didn't feel there were any great issues with late-game aircraft in my playthrough. Noting it's just one playthrough so may not be representative.
Also, given my experience with enemy aircraft, Heavy CAPs are good!
* One missile from an aircraft on its sister started a fire that sank it - so that's the last post-1940s armoured carrier I'll build for a while!
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 13, 2023 5:52:33 GMT -6
Just fougth a battle , Germany vs England 1968 with 120 aircraft losses per side... and only a single CL sunk by ac action (in a battle where in the initial missile engament around 12 ships were sunk). Realistically modern aircraft shouldn't be behaving like ww2 ones , and having sorties be of only 3-5 ac when there may be 4 ships firing SAMs is plain suicide; and that 120 losses per side in a day is completly insane when talking about modern planes. Specially when using missiles, they should be a stand off weapon, with SAM in turn being much more about area denial and disrupting launches than murder machines whose missiles may destroy 2 planes with one missile regularly.
Also I'm know convinced that bombs currently are bugged - seem to many instances of 2,5 inches CA armor stopping 2500 pounds AP bombs. I know it may be RNG, but I suspect Ap bomb piercing is a fraction of what it should be.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 13, 2023 7:07:02 GMT -6
While I haven't gotten to use them yet, I am curious as to everyone's thoughts on why this apparent nerf is? Patch 1.26 of RTW2 optimally balanced dive bombing aircraft performance, or at least was supposed to. Why weren't these values simply ported directly into RTW3? Have things been tweaked to encourage missile-armed surface action, meaning more use with all the new late-game design options? Or is it something else unintentional? My best quess is the devs were scared that aircraft would be too strong, this seems to be a trend among several types of armament, and ships, almost every single type of armament in game has reduced effectiveness from its historical counterpart, for what reason i dont know but it has alot of cascading effects in game. Yes even missiles, although going into detail on everything and the effect it has would take a long time and I'm busy finding bugs and making other suggestions that are less extensive and easier to do. However aircraft currently cant carry as many torpedoes as they should be able to, they cant carry as many rockets or missiles as they should be able to, they cant carry as many bombs as they should be able to. And due to how bombs work, having many small bombs (250 lbs) is much better than having a single 2000 lb bomb, small bombs do not seem to have lower fire starting chance in my testing, if they do its very minor. however rockets have replaced bombs for starting fires, and are many times better at starting fires than dive bombers, they are also more survivable in my experience. and bombs primary damage is fires, bombs do not do a lot of damage. The single best aircraft tech in the game currently before missiles is double torpedoes. torpedo bombers are basically the meta until 1950 and JAs this is because every other form of attack except for rockets or torpedoes (rockets are mostly usefull against small ships) does very low damage and has low accuracy
|
|
kevin
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by kevin on Jun 19, 2023 0:11:17 GMT -6
After the advent of surface-to-air missiles, many attack aircraft switched to low-altitude attacks, and the capability of pre-1970 radars/SAMs against low-altitude targets was very limited. In other words, a supersonic attack aircraft carrying bombs and attacking at low altitude should be very difficult to intercept with SAMs. To my knowledge, this aspect doesn't seem to be simulated in RTW3.
|
|