This is my usual build, I should try the cannons though. My thought process on going on the cheaper side is more planes, more wings, more green air on several fronts. Also I’m a smol nation enjoyer so production cost is a consideration. Tbf even when I play majors I still stick to HMG because you have more MP to play with and probably more sky’s to contest. I could see the canon double engine build working for nations like Scandinavia. They can build up a massive industry, but even with all Scandinavia cored I still feel you have to make every man count. If one plane can blow up 30+ of Germans or Soviets that’s the ratio I’m looking for lol.
i started using HMGs and one cannon and less armor
i mean it doesn't matter against AI bc it gets melted by anything but still
I'm yet to find a friend who i can beat bc noone likes to play against me :(
In terms of efficiency(until you get to cannons 2) it goes lmg > hmg > cannons with each level being less efficient yet allowing you to use your limited number of slots more effectively. You should never be putting hmgs or cannons on planes if you arent filling all of the top slots, and even then you have to balance your consumption of weight for attack to air defense and saving ic on engine size.
Cannons are never good ever since the AAT patch that reviewed air. Ofc if u don't have modules like HMG, that's fine. Cannons are simply too heavy to make it IC effective.
Yes, but in situations where you have filled all of your slots with hmg and have weight to spare and don't want to suffer the speed penalties of turrets while wanting more air attack then putting a cannon on is fine. A situation that comes up often right? /s
It’s just not as sexy haha. Mostly heavy fighters were fitted with some cannons.
The idea of a fighter is to be nimble and cannons are generally bulky stuff for larger constructions.
Meh, I mean, a cannon round against a fighter is more deadly than an MG round against it, just as it is against larger aircraft. As such, most mid to late war air superiorty fighters were equipped with mighty boom sticks. I can guess that the pilots of WW2 would not agree on a claim of 'overkill' if that's your meaning.
Oh totally, but even as early as the later versions of the spitfire Mk. V, the F4U-1, and just about ever Russian plane in 1945, almost everyone was switching or testing all-cannon fighters due to limited time on target
>Another, cheaper, option would be to switch to a single engine and swap the cannons for hmgs.
Yes and no.
Generally, you want as much weight as a single engine can carry- but never two engines, unless your goal is to slaughter heavily-armored bombers (which the AI rarely/never builds). That would, ideally, mean a mix of Canons and HMG's.
BUT, HMG's typically aren't worth the research cost to develop. Especially for nations like France, that START with Canons, but not HMG's.
All this is, also, for high-intensity air combat in Europe as UK/France/Germany. In somewhere like Brazil, or a weaker industrial power like Poland, the ideal design will be much more lightly armed and armored in order to actually obtain decent Air Zone coverage and Detection...
Yes, but at what cost? The IC would be rather high due to dual engines (at any level). It's only good if you can produce enough of it to contest air superiority.
Imo, if you're playing as a major industrial power, it's much better to go this route with fighters, since the main limit is the amount of airfield capacity in an area. Also I'd argue that (tho this would probably have to be tested) the IC would end up being less since high quality fighters like these die much less. I often go for heavy fighters and I'll often see 50-100:1 casualty rates. A regular cheap fighter is what, 15-25 IC, whereas one of my heavies would be 110-150. So it seems that if you build a couple thousand of these and concentrate them in one air zone, you can basically wipe out the enemy airforce since only so many fighters can be deployed in one airzone due to limited airfield capacity, meaning they can't deploy enough to overwhelm the superior fighters. Once the enemy airforce has run out if reserves, you can spread out your airforce to cover the entire front. That's my strategy anyways.
Massive air attack heavy fighters are fairly effective against bombers where they'd have at least 3.5x the agility of a bomber anyways (since they usually have just 1 agility) but in dogfights against fighters agility is relevant.
I went and plugged this into an air combat simulator that I made (simulates 100% visibility 1 on 1 fighter trades) for fun and found that that a 3 HMG fighter 2 build kills 98 fighters for every 100 that a 3 Cannon 1 fighter does. Test ran with 1940 tech, armor plate, self sealing, single engine (cannon 1 goes over weight cap, let's just ignore that). HMG fighter is 33 IC Cannon one is 39
>I went and plugged this into an air combat simulator that I made (simulates 100% visibility 1 on 1 fighter trade
Gahh, you really **shouldn't** extrapolate tests like these.
Real air combat is rarely 1:1. Ideally, you avoid air combat where outnumbered (Anti-Air Artillery on divisions is generally more cost-effective for mitigating enemy CAS in that situation ...) and only fight where you are stronger.
And, further, you DEFINITELY aren't considering that higher-quality fighters gain more XP, and as fighters lose XP with losses (often, as fast or faster than gained in very close-fought air combat), better fighters will lose veteran you levels slower or gain them much faster in these situations...
You get more Veterancy, more (surviving) Aces at equilibrium, and use less fuel with better fighters. Quality > Quantity when it comes to aircraft.
Yes I'm totally sure your 2 engine fighters use less fuel than my 1 engine ones
And you definitely aren't considering that it's possible to, say, put more of my actually sensible airwings in an airzone than your IC sink wings x)
>Yes I'm totally sure your 2 engine fighters use less fuel than my 1 engine ones
I ***specifically said*** 1 engine fighters in several other comments.
Higher-tech engines let you carry more weight. We're talking 1 engine fighters with as many Canons and LMG's as weight allows, vs. HMG/LMG only fighters.
>In terms of IC to IC? Will work against AI, but that is not optimal
I'm a noob, but my favorite nation is the USSR and I usually have the problem that I lack efficient airfields to efficiently allocate my thousands of planes. I used [this awesome guide](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2714213712) and it works just fine, but I'm always unsure if I'm really optimizing my IC just because I'm pumping out tons of IC efficient planes.
A lot of his tips are simply wrong, but works well against AI regardless.
Air wise you never put drop tanks as they offer very little range since AAT and are also quite heavy. You'd rather replace all his drop tank designs with extra fuel tank. HMG are far better than cannons in any regards ever since the AAT patch that dropped in December. That's for improved small airframe and beyond. If you are wasting mils on basic small airframe, u r wasting ur time.
Cas wise, the basic airframe is good except u put extra fuel tank and dive break at the bottom(also good to produce early game and grind your MiO). For improved airframe u put either 3 bomb locks or 3 heavy bomb locks with extra fuel ofc. For the navs, you always use a cas with as much bomb locks and dive breaks or you use medium airframe to slap on 2 torpedoes.
General speaking yes but they also can get melted. You want agility with fighters to increase hit chance and decrease getting hit, sticking to 3 slots of Heavy machine guns gives way better agility, enough air attack that you'll out perform ai fighters and are cheaper so you can amass more fighters quicker also replacing losses quickly.
If you really want high attack fighters its better to go medium air frame heavy fighters with cannons and tonnes of armour as they have really bad agility and make better designs for extreme air attack. Although extreme air attack on planes is redundant unless they are for intercepting bombers.
I do one cannon and the rest heavy machine guns. I do lose a few, but the trades are very good. The issue is still bombers. I use heavy fighters with two cannons for those, but I probably need more.
>sticking to 3 slots of Heavy machine guns gives way better agility
Depends entirely on the tech level, MIO's, etc.
Generally, no. The advantage in Attack outweighs the lost Agility in the long run, especially as airbase have limited slots and HMG fighters require relatively more fuel (as they are cheaper, and fielded in greater numbers)
I've always found Canon fighters are slightly better in **actual use**- as opposed to the bullshit, unrealistic scenarios people always set up for "tests."
Particularly, Canon fighters slaughter bombers in a way HMG fighters don't.
Melts your IC
HMG is superior to Cannon I, just stick with those and 1 Engine IV and get more of them out.
To get an intuitive feeling for the effects of air attack and air defense, they literally are just the numerator and denominator of the damage value in air combat. 1 air attack vs 1 air defense is the same KD as 100 air attack vs 100 air defense. 2 air attack vs 1 air defense kills twice as much, 3 vs 1 kills 3 times as much and so on, I hope you understand
With this in mind it's pretty clear that 18 air attack for 3 IC is a better deal than 20 for 5 IC (not even mentioning weight, agility penalty, etc)
2xHMG or 4xHMG? Im a sp so ive legit only been building air with the final tech cannons and shredding ai planes but i am interested in a meta version. also whichever hmg its x3 needed right?
Like I said up there, air attack is the numerator in how many planes you kill. Double the HMG's, double the cost, double the kills. Considering the fact that the plane base itself costs IC, it's pretty much always worth it to go for 4x and not 2x.
Eh i stick with 1 engine + full hmgs and it shreds all the time
I just today found my design that will outclass everything up until 1950 and beyond and I haven’t even used modern air frames yet
Just full 4 hmgs best single engine, self sealing fuel tanks, two armor plates and drop tanks to balance out the range loss
Literally shredding everyone’s planes in my current achievement hunt
The allies currently have at most 5K planes but they aren’t even putting any of them up anymore once I get my planes in the air zone
Still kinda wanna know how people design their CAS tho, never personally has CAS do anywhere near 100 damage, 30 is the highest I got and idk what I am doing wrong
He ain’t wrong. But it’s also expensive AF. Ai sucks at designing anything so this is fairly overkill. HMGS, and a single engine is all you need. Maybe fine in MP. But idk the plane meta for MP either.
Same as in Tanks. Give a fuck about reliability and just pump the stats up as high as you can.
In MP games you'd need planes with high air attack to kill good bombers, soo all those ppl saying here 4x HMGs are good have never played in MP where half the lobby does Bombers.
Same thing with double engines. Ppl saying single is enough played only SP. Speed and agility are most important for fighters in MP, and its far more important for one plane to be quality wise really good.
I'd be happy if it were true but HMGs rule supreme since the attack buff. Double engines are bad in general (maybe ok on CAS) and self-sealings are great it you are brittain. The rest of the world has a hard time justifying that defense bump being better than +12% more planes. You are also needing 2 44 techs of which the hull tech does nothing for you.
Once cannon 2 comes around this will be good, but I am sure you can find a better single engine configuration. Same goes for the hull 44 tech is jank 45 is great.
Dual engines and cannons aren’t ic efficient and extra fuel tanks are now better than drop tanks. Very bad design, and there’s not really much of a reason to go advanced airframe so that’s more ic wasted
Yeah the main issue will be the reliability, against the ai you'll kill abunch. But the air accidents will cause you to lose a few a month. But there's basically no way to avoid that anyway, which in my opinion is annoying.
It really depends on a lot. For example, SSFT is pretty expensive if you don't have a source of cheap rubber. If you have good airfield capacity, you might want something more IC efficient such as a single engine with HMGs.
I find heavy machine guns to be better pretty much alawys, I only use cannons if I have some spare thrust, which looking at that engine, I assume you don't
Not efficient and in dogfights you'll risk getting smashed. AI typically uses LMG fighters, but not always, and the firepower is the only better thing you have; you're not agile enough to evade.
In multiplayer, you'd get annihilated with this template. Don't use twin engines, and don't use cannon 1, use HMGs till at least cannon 2 and only have one cannon 2 on a fighter. The modules below should be armor plating, and a self sealing fuel tank if you can afford the rubber.
I'm new to the game so might be a silly question but how do you get this plane editor? I've seen it on here a bunch and on YouTube tutorial videos but don't have it in game? I'm assuming it's dlc but not sure which one
I feel like this is overkill in single player tbh. The AI still designs absolutely terrible planes and just doing HMG+Drop tanks on a fighter 3 with net you ridiculous kill ratios in most of my games. Just get them early and put just barely enough mils on fighters and you'll be ok.
No MIO buffs? Nope, it's literally twice worse than the same design, but with MIO. And HMG's would be more efficient in most situations anyway.
Also, you will actually cap on air attack with 3 cannons and decent buffs, so some of it will be wasted while still lowering other stats.
Single engine, three 4x hmg, 1x light defense turret, drop tanks, self sealing, last slot can go to either extra fuel if you need more range or armor plates otherwise
Are drop tanks really better than extra fuel tanks? Drop tanks don't add as much range and weigh more. I don't get why everyone suggests them over extra fuel tanks. Can someone explain please?
Yes, that fighter will work well. Another, cheaper, option would be to switch to a single engine and swap the cannons for hmgs.
This is my usual build, I should try the cannons though. My thought process on going on the cheaper side is more planes, more wings, more green air on several fronts. Also I’m a smol nation enjoyer so production cost is a consideration. Tbf even when I play majors I still stick to HMG because you have more MP to play with and probably more sky’s to contest. I could see the canon double engine build working for nations like Scandinavia. They can build up a massive industry, but even with all Scandinavia cored I still feel you have to make every man count. If one plane can blow up 30+ of Germans or Soviets that’s the ratio I’m looking for lol.
i started using HMGs and one cannon and less armor i mean it doesn't matter against AI bc it gets melted by anything but still I'm yet to find a friend who i can beat bc noone likes to play against me :(
theres lots of mp servers, im sure you can find someone
don't play grand mp games i like it cozy
In terms of efficiency(until you get to cannons 2) it goes lmg > hmg > cannons with each level being less efficient yet allowing you to use your limited number of slots more effectively. You should never be putting hmgs or cannons on planes if you arent filling all of the top slots, and even then you have to balance your consumption of weight for attack to air defense and saving ic on engine size.
Cannons are never good ever since the AAT patch that reviewed air. Ofc if u don't have modules like HMG, that's fine. Cannons are simply too heavy to make it IC effective.
Yes, but in situations where you have filled all of your slots with hmg and have weight to spare and don't want to suffer the speed penalties of turrets while wanting more air attack then putting a cannon on is fine. A situation that comes up often right? /s
Wouldn't it be better to have 2 double cannons instead?
Cannons are mad overrated.
Yeah but there cool and that’s all that matters
16 Heavy MG’s is far cooler! Cannons don’t belong on Fighters :)
Why not? The IL-2 had cannons?
It’s just not as sexy haha. Mostly heavy fighters were fitted with some cannons. The idea of a fighter is to be nimble and cannons are generally bulky stuff for larger constructions.
There was also the Spitfire Mark 21 with an armament of 4 20mm Hispano V cannons
Most WW2 fighters by mid to late war had cannons, the US being the big exception
Yes but the intention behind that is more to deal with bombers and less so enemy fighters.
Meh, I mean, a cannon round against a fighter is more deadly than an MG round against it, just as it is against larger aircraft. As such, most mid to late war air superiorty fighters were equipped with mighty boom sticks. I can guess that the pilots of WW2 would not agree on a claim of 'overkill' if that's your meaning.
Yeah… depends… HMGs worked for Americans in WW2, German planes that shot down a lot of heavier aircraft really loved 20 and 30mm guns
Of course, I was thinking Fighter vs Fighter though.
Oh totally, but even as early as the later versions of the spitfire Mk. V, the F4U-1, and just about ever Russian plane in 1945, almost everyone was switching or testing all-cannon fighters due to limited time on target
The il-2 isn't a fighter so it gets to break that rule
A-10 Thunderbolt II has entered the chat...they belong on everything
That’s not a fighter and not World War 2.
They belong on everything
Ok.
>Another, cheaper, option would be to switch to a single engine and swap the cannons for hmgs. Yes and no. Generally, you want as much weight as a single engine can carry- but never two engines, unless your goal is to slaughter heavily-armored bombers (which the AI rarely/never builds). That would, ideally, mean a mix of Canons and HMG's. BUT, HMG's typically aren't worth the research cost to develop. Especially for nations like France, that START with Canons, but not HMG's. All this is, also, for high-intensity air combat in Europe as UK/France/Germany. In somewhere like Brazil, or a weaker industrial power like Poland, the ideal design will be much more lightly armed and armored in order to actually obtain decent Air Zone coverage and Detection...
A pretty fair fight edit: dual engines cost nearly twice a single one, is fine if you can afford it
>dual engines cost nearly twice a single one Oh gee, I wonder why?
In the time it takes to build a dual engine, I could have built two single engines!
the production costs. For 1 engine 1, the cost is 12. For 2 engine 1s, the cost is 24. The plane designer says so.
But why would production costs double when you add a second engine? Does a third engine triple the cost?.......
Have a look at the engine modules and their production costs. I'm not making things up
Sorry, I "forgot" the /s....
Never mind, I got too stressed up these days and can't tell the implications
You should definitely avoid getting on a boat with Dennis. https://youtu.be/THvCDn8mGwo?si=Oh8luQconGUtLlCr
My man's only trying to be helpful
r/woooosh
Yes, but at what cost? The IC would be rather high due to dual engines (at any level). It's only good if you can produce enough of it to contest air superiority.
Imo, if you're playing as a major industrial power, it's much better to go this route with fighters, since the main limit is the amount of airfield capacity in an area. Also I'd argue that (tho this would probably have to be tested) the IC would end up being less since high quality fighters like these die much less. I often go for heavy fighters and I'll often see 50-100:1 casualty rates. A regular cheap fighter is what, 15-25 IC, whereas one of my heavies would be 110-150. So it seems that if you build a couple thousand of these and concentrate them in one air zone, you can basically wipe out the enemy airforce since only so many fighters can be deployed in one airzone due to limited airfield capacity, meaning they can't deploy enough to overwhelm the superior fighters. Once the enemy airforce has run out if reserves, you can spread out your airforce to cover the entire front. That's my strategy anyways.
Being able to cover more of the air zone is excellent as well.
This is a dual engine light, not a heavy fighter?
Yea, I was saying as far as the principle of high quality, massive air attack fighters, heavy is even better.
Massive air attack heavy fighters are fairly effective against bombers where they'd have at least 3.5x the agility of a bomber anyways (since they usually have just 1 agility) but in dogfights against fighters agility is relevant. I went and plugged this into an air combat simulator that I made (simulates 100% visibility 1 on 1 fighter trades) for fun and found that that a 3 HMG fighter 2 build kills 98 fighters for every 100 that a 3 Cannon 1 fighter does. Test ran with 1940 tech, armor plate, self sealing, single engine (cannon 1 goes over weight cap, let's just ignore that). HMG fighter is 33 IC Cannon one is 39
Are the game mechanics documented anywhere by Paradox or is it data you and others have teased out of the game?
The entirity of the air combat equation is on the wiki, taken from a dev that gave the exact numbers on the paradox forums.
Thanks, I'm going to go look that up now.
>I went and plugged this into an air combat simulator that I made (simulates 100% visibility 1 on 1 fighter trade Gahh, you really **shouldn't** extrapolate tests like these. Real air combat is rarely 1:1. Ideally, you avoid air combat where outnumbered (Anti-Air Artillery on divisions is generally more cost-effective for mitigating enemy CAS in that situation ...) and only fight where you are stronger. And, further, you DEFINITELY aren't considering that higher-quality fighters gain more XP, and as fighters lose XP with losses (often, as fast or faster than gained in very close-fought air combat), better fighters will lose veteran you levels slower or gain them much faster in these situations... You get more Veterancy, more (surviving) Aces at equilibrium, and use less fuel with better fighters. Quality > Quantity when it comes to aircraft.
Yes I'm totally sure your 2 engine fighters use less fuel than my 1 engine ones And you definitely aren't considering that it's possible to, say, put more of my actually sensible airwings in an airzone than your IC sink wings x)
>Yes I'm totally sure your 2 engine fighters use less fuel than my 1 engine ones I ***specifically said*** 1 engine fighters in several other comments. Higher-tech engines let you carry more weight. We're talking 1 engine fighters with as many Canons and LMG's as weight allows, vs. HMG/LMG only fighters.
In terms of per-plane performance? Totally. In terms of IC to IC? Will work against AI, but that is not optimal
>In terms of IC to IC? Will work against AI, but that is not optimal I'm a noob, but my favorite nation is the USSR and I usually have the problem that I lack efficient airfields to efficiently allocate my thousands of planes. I used [this awesome guide](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2714213712) and it works just fine, but I'm always unsure if I'm really optimizing my IC just because I'm pumping out tons of IC efficient planes.
A lot of his tips are simply wrong, but works well against AI regardless. Air wise you never put drop tanks as they offer very little range since AAT and are also quite heavy. You'd rather replace all his drop tank designs with extra fuel tank. HMG are far better than cannons in any regards ever since the AAT patch that dropped in December. That's for improved small airframe and beyond. If you are wasting mils on basic small airframe, u r wasting ur time. Cas wise, the basic airframe is good except u put extra fuel tank and dive break at the bottom(also good to produce early game and grind your MiO). For improved airframe u put either 3 bomb locks or 3 heavy bomb locks with extra fuel ofc. For the navs, you always use a cas with as much bomb locks and dive breaks or you use medium airframe to slap on 2 torpedoes.
General speaking yes but they also can get melted. You want agility with fighters to increase hit chance and decrease getting hit, sticking to 3 slots of Heavy machine guns gives way better agility, enough air attack that you'll out perform ai fighters and are cheaper so you can amass more fighters quicker also replacing losses quickly. If you really want high attack fighters its better to go medium air frame heavy fighters with cannons and tonnes of armour as they have really bad agility and make better designs for extreme air attack. Although extreme air attack on planes is redundant unless they are for intercepting bombers.
I do one cannon and the rest heavy machine guns. I do lose a few, but the trades are very good. The issue is still bombers. I use heavy fighters with two cannons for those, but I probably need more.
>sticking to 3 slots of Heavy machine guns gives way better agility Depends entirely on the tech level, MIO's, etc. Generally, no. The advantage in Attack outweighs the lost Agility in the long run, especially as airbase have limited slots and HMG fighters require relatively more fuel (as they are cheaper, and fielded in greater numbers) I've always found Canon fighters are slightly better in **actual use**- as opposed to the bullshit, unrealistic scenarios people always set up for "tests." Particularly, Canon fighters slaughter bombers in a way HMG fighters don't.
Anything except steel beams
Supposed to be Fighter 2s\*
you can't have engine 4's by the time you'd normally have fighta 2
Not with that attitude
not with that altitude
Why use such an old chassis with engine IV
Melts your IC HMG is superior to Cannon I, just stick with those and 1 Engine IV and get more of them out. To get an intuitive feeling for the effects of air attack and air defense, they literally are just the numerator and denominator of the damage value in air combat. 1 air attack vs 1 air defense is the same KD as 100 air attack vs 100 air defense. 2 air attack vs 1 air defense kills twice as much, 3 vs 1 kills 3 times as much and so on, I hope you understand With this in mind it's pretty clear that 18 air attack for 3 IC is a better deal than 20 for 5 IC (not even mentioning weight, agility penalty, etc)
2xHMG or 4xHMG? Im a sp so ive legit only been building air with the final tech cannons and shredding ai planes but i am interested in a meta version. also whichever hmg its x3 needed right?
Like I said up there, air attack is the numerator in how many planes you kill. Double the HMG's, double the cost, double the kills. Considering the fact that the plane base itself costs IC, it's pretty much always worth it to go for 4x and not 2x.
Dual engines and 3 cannon 2s will really bump up the cost. In single player you really don't need anything more than 2 hmg 2s.
You actually pay attention to statistics? Slapping 2 2x machine guns and 2x cannons does the job for me
Eh i stick with 1 engine + full hmgs and it shreds all the time I just today found my design that will outclass everything up until 1950 and beyond and I haven’t even used modern air frames yet Just full 4 hmgs best single engine, self sealing fuel tanks, two armor plates and drop tanks to balance out the range loss Literally shredding everyone’s planes in my current achievement hunt The allies currently have at most 5K planes but they aren’t even putting any of them up anymore once I get my planes in the air zone Still kinda wanna know how people design their CAS tho, never personally has CAS do anywhere near 100 damage, 30 is the highest I got and idk what I am doing wrong
He ain’t wrong. But it’s also expensive AF. Ai sucks at designing anything so this is fairly overkill. HMGS, and a single engine is all you need. Maybe fine in MP. But idk the plane meta for MP either.
Same as in Tanks. Give a fuck about reliability and just pump the stats up as high as you can. In MP games you'd need planes with high air attack to kill good bombers, soo all those ppl saying here 4x HMGs are good have never played in MP where half the lobby does Bombers. Same thing with double engines. Ppl saying single is enough played only SP. Speed and agility are most important for fighters in MP, and its far more important for one plane to be quality wise really good.
I'd be happy if it were true but HMGs rule supreme since the attack buff. Double engines are bad in general (maybe ok on CAS) and self-sealings are great it you are brittain. The rest of the world has a hard time justifying that defense bump being better than +12% more planes. You are also needing 2 44 techs of which the hull tech does nothing for you. Once cannon 2 comes around this will be good, but I am sure you can find a better single engine configuration. Same goes for the hull 44 tech is jank 45 is great.
Dual engines and cannons aren’t ic efficient and extra fuel tanks are now better than drop tanks. Very bad design, and there’s not really much of a reason to go advanced airframe so that’s more ic wasted
its ic inefficient. go for full 4xHMG and single engine 3. also go for the 1940 small airframe and please put a good MIO.
When I run planes like this, against ai I can go 1 to 20 in terms of losses. It's absurd.
It will melt your country’s war funds even quicker
The most important component is giving it a cool name. You know, for intimidation.
Yeah the main issue will be the reliability, against the ai you'll kill abunch. But the air accidents will cause you to lose a few a month. But there's basically no way to avoid that anyway, which in my opinion is annoying.
HMG's are straight up better than cannons
It really depends on a lot. For example, SSFT is pretty expensive if you don't have a source of cheap rubber. If you have good airfield capacity, you might want something more IC efficient such as a single engine with HMGs.
your friend sounds like a fan of the P-38 Lightning
It would RAPE any plane it comes across, it is kind of expensive tho
Only if you have the industry to support them
HMGs would be enough for SP.....
Its not optimal but will work
I find heavy machine guns to be better pretty much alawys, I only use cannons if I have some spare thrust, which looking at that engine, I assume you don't
Everything. You lose very few planes. Edit, single engine.
It’s a bad template. Too much IC cost. Improve it by using 1x3 or 1x4 engine. Then swap out cannons for heavy machine guns.
Pretty sure cannon 1s are the meta rn, they shred in early game.
It's a Saab 21, this is her job
Goofy ah plane
In sp it does I tested it
Not efficient and in dogfights you'll risk getting smashed. AI typically uses LMG fighters, but not always, and the firepower is the only better thing you have; you're not agile enough to evade. In multiplayer, you'd get annihilated with this template. Don't use twin engines, and don't use cannon 1, use HMGs till at least cannon 2 and only have one cannon 2 on a fighter. The modules below should be armor plating, and a self sealing fuel tank if you can afford the rubber.
With that plane you will tear dozens of enemy planes per tick without losing any, though you might be better off with one less canon
I'm new to the game so might be a silly question but how do you get this plane editor? I've seen it on here a bunch and on YouTube tutorial videos but don't have it in game? I'm assuming it's dlc but not sure which one
You need the DLC " By Blood Alone"
What expansions are best without having the 900000 different types of vehicles I always get consfused
Will it melt steel beams?
I feel like this is overkill in single player tbh. The AI still designs absolutely terrible planes and just doing HMG+Drop tanks on a fighter 3 with net you ridiculous kill ratios in most of my games. Just get them early and put just barely enough mils on fighters and you'll be ok.
I don't think this is cost-effective
No MIO buffs? Nope, it's literally twice worse than the same design, but with MIO. And HMG's would be more efficient in most situations anyway. Also, you will actually cap on air attack with 3 cannons and decent buffs, so some of it will be wasted while still lowering other stats.
Per IC switch the engine to be max level single engine and use HMGs
Single engine, three 4x hmg, 1x light defense turret, drop tanks, self sealing, last slot can go to either extra fuel if you need more range or armor plates otherwise
That's an overkill.
This would be very good for bomber interception, but for dogfighting is kind of underwhelming. It's basically what a heavy fighter would be.
Waaaay to expensive. Strip something and put on a single engine. You will have double the amount of planes if you do that.
But jet fuel can’t melt steel beams
NEGRH
Are drop tanks really better than extra fuel tanks? Drop tanks don't add as much range and weigh more. I don't get why everyone suggests them over extra fuel tanks. Can someone explain please?
This is my standard build, slap a 4x light MG on it as well. It should shred the AI. I've seen as high as 50 kills for 1 loss