Research/Production questions

[jjdenver]

I realized that I don't fully understand from youtube tutorials and manual how research and production work. Let's take for example armor units. There are 2 categories: breakthrough and heavy armor.

Let's say I start researching both.

Now I want to build an armor unit. In the production screen there seems to be a line for breakthrough and a line for heavy armor. As Germany I start with breakthrough 39/40 and heavy armor 39. I select breakthrough row and select 40 above that row. Now I build the armor.

Will it get none of the advances from breakthrough and only the advances from heavy armor. In other words I've chosen at time of production that this will forever be a breakthrough armor unit path and not a heavy armor unit path?

What if later I finish my first level of research in heavy armor. Can I switch the newly produced armor unit to that path? Or will it as an armor unit automatically get the benefits to its' unit characteristics given by the newly researched heavy armor 40 achievement and that upgrade will be applied over time using my reinf/upgrade production points from the production screen?

Then let's say I finish researching breakthrough 41. Will the armor unit have to wait to get those benefits over time based on production points spent on reinf/upgrade? Or something else?

Thanks

[tyronec]

It is one or the other, so once you build a Breakthrough unit that is it for life and it gets no benefits from Heavy research.
You have to allocate production for it to upgrade to the next year. The upgrade is then managed by the AI.

[jjdenver]

Thanks - interesting.

So as Germany which type of infantry do you usually choose? And which type of armor? And which type of medium bomber and which type of close air support and which type of fighter? Or do you make a 50/50 mix or something like that?

I read in the manual that interceptors are the best at a2a combat - so would it make sense to simply build a ton of interceptors? Will interceptor type fighter units still escort your bombers when they hit targets?

And for Italy with limited research I guess it definitely makes sense to just pick one type and focus on it?
Infantry: assault (balanced choice)
Fighters: interceptor
Bombers: naval air + close support (build some medium bombers as naval air and some short range bombers as close support)

Does it ever make sense to build air units that are specialized for detection and electronics?

[AlbertN]

Infantry til last patch was Assault for life. Now I am not sure so will try to balance.
Armour is Heavy Armour, hands down. Breakthrough sucks monkey balls and I'd gladly have all Heavy Armour units to start with as Axis. 1 action point difference does not cut it for all the goodies Heavies come in with.
Bomber is pratically 'Close Support' - hands down. Naval bombers are way too situational. The antisom bombers ... well until now no one built submarines besides the starting ones. Strategic bombers one may as well just do the long range ones.
Fighters? Interceptors or Escort Fighters (the latest really shine later due to being on par to interceptors, and have a ton of extra range). Fighter-Bombers as they're now, are useless.

Italy you cannot afford to tech 2 things in general - so Close Support, which is less important of infantry techs (careful Italy starts with a mix bunch of infantries and in last patch for Italy I'd favor antitank infantry over assault), you may want to tech breakthrough (that's how your armoured units start which are pratically the only punch Italy has besides mountain infantry).

[battlevonwar]

jjdenver, I would take a very long time to click on each tech within the tech tree as it gives you the 411 on each tech and precisely what they do to a point. I would also open the manual and cover the techs individually. As for builds that pertains to your overall strategy. When you click on each unit type you can build it gives a breakdown of the numbers on the type of unit and it's attributes. i.e. Heavy Tank +1 Defense...vs Breakthough +1 movement...

If you want a crushing blow on Barbarossa you want to build a lot of tanks/mechs/CAS/maybe the research that is aggressive. Like Breakthrough is what it says it is. Not made for defense like Heavy Tanks. Interceptors made to take on Bombers and Fighters to multi-role units able to bomb/intercept/dominate airspace. Jack of all trades...

I'm a newbie to this game but each strategy has possibilities and I wouldn't let anyone tell you one is the best or the worst. I would experiment and have fun. If you want to try a Sea Lion, do that. Or a delayed Barbarossa and dominate more of Europe, try that. Or a Mideast strategy, try that. Try everything that entertains you and have fun with it. As the Allies, You need to adjust:

You are on the defensive until 1942 at best and then you go all devil on the Axis. It's whether or not you can push in the West cause you were wise or the East cause the Axis were weak on their push. Or whether or not you want to take Italy out first or try France. Risks and rewards ... You can even go Strategic if you want but you will have to defend. You might want safe: wait till '43-44 when you have overwhelming numbers if you can. Though I imagine an aggressive and skilled Axis will make you make moves. You will react and thus the strategy is fluid rather than stuck on like glue. That's the best type of player.

Don't get caught up in the games details but pick them out as you go, it makes it far more entertaining. I like to learn as I go but learn fast and become very good at predicting what the opponent will do. This is grand strategy ... Hope my overextended posting helps!

[jjdenver]

Thanks battlevonwar but I'd prefer to keep this topic focused on information about how the game works and not ramble into philosophy of playing games.

Another question about research. I just want to be sure I understand. If I research let's say "detection & electronics" but I never build an air unit with specialization path "detection & electronics" then my research into that topic "detection & electronics" was 100% completely wasted? It won't benefit any other air unit path?

Thanks!

[AlvaroSousa]

Detection and electronics helps planes to better destroy submarines. It is a minor technology in case the Allied player wants to put points for their aircraft to hunt subs

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
Detection and electronics helps planes to better destroy submarines. It is a minor technology in case the Allied player wants to put points for their aircraft to hunt subs

Thank you but that unfortunately still doesn't answer my basic question.

Let's say I have 10 air units on map (bombers) and all are built as "close support" bombers. Now I research with max research effort the detection and naval air technologies and get several advancements in each of those 2 categories. Will my 10 on map bombers that were built as "close support" bombers receive any benefit from these tech advancements? Or will only any bomber built initially as "naval air" or "detection" bomber receive a benefit from these tech advancements?

[tyronec]

No, you can only have one specialisation for the unit.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: tyronec
No, you can only have one specialisation for the unit.

Thanks - I think I understand - you are confirming that an advancement in "escort fighter" research doesn't have any impact whatsoever on a unit that was built as "interceptor" type.

This leads me to a further question about unit characteristics. I am comparing interceptor path to escort path: manual says this about "defense" characteristic: "Defense – Armor, detection, and maneuverability of a unit"

As you can see from the small spreadsheet image which shows escort path values compared to interceptor path values as a base, escorts get worse air to air, better defense, and more range. But how exactly is defense used? Does it make planes more survivable in combat vs other planes?

Also does the +18 range literally mean range can go out to 6 (base) +18 = 24? That is a huge range.

[Journier]

So was the b29 bombers range
Yea that's range

[AlvaroSousa]

The better the defense of any unit means that the chance they lose a strength point goes down. All strength point damage does also apply an effectiveness loss regardless if it was blocked or not.

the better the air combat the more damage they inflict.

And no the range isn't unreasonable. In fact range is very easy to implement in WW2 with drop tanks. But that is hard to translate as something as a cost because really it is easy to put drop tanks on any fighter. So technically it should be automatic for everything. But I can't do that or players would always take escort fighters so there must be some exchange.

[jjdenver]

Thanks for clarification. I didn't say I think the range is unreasonable - it's simply much more than the 6 range that the interceptors would have.

[AlbertN]

Escort fighters are not a tradeoff.
They've -1 Air Attack and +1 Defence at max level ('45), but +24 range.

It's an all gain - and if some nations would not have to start with Interceptors or have a helluva of them, they'd just all go Escort Fighters.
But only USA can do that.

[shri]

Escort seems way overpowered as does Heavy.

Interceptor is way weaker than what it was, should have more attack maybe.
Also breakthrough needs to have some benefits in addition to that measly range. Maybe more experience.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: shri

Escort seems way overpowered as does Heavy.

Interceptor is way weaker than what it was, should have more attack maybe.
Also breakthrough needs to have some benefits in addition to that measly range. Maybe more experience.

Until 1944 tech interceptors should reign supreme, as heavy and escort fighters had to trade in maneuverability and/or speed for either firepower or range.
Only in late 1943 with refinement of a/c like the P-47D and P-51 did the long range escort fighter equal German short range interceptors in performance - and only because the RLM was incapable of producing a replacement for the Me109 when that type was nearing obsolescence, same with the protracted development of a new generation of aero engines. Not that it mattered much, because more than anything it was numbers that decided the air battle over the Reich both aircraft and the trained men to fly them.

Still an equal number of interceptors should be more effective than an equal number of escorts as they escort bombers, even including sweeps.
The escorts will be diluted, the interceptors will gain a force multiplier, even being able of multiple take offs during a single deep bomber mission.
So escorts need to outnumber interceptors to really have their impact felt. All escorts engaged early will shorten their range as they drop tanks.

Anyhow general effectiveness of escorts vs interceptors is not clear cut and even by 1944 there are many factors that contribute to their success other than 1:1 performance - including training. In short even in 1944-45 when fighting on equal or better terms, with experienced pilots ”obsolescent” Me109s could demand a heavy price - even from more modern P-51s.

[no need to explain the design history of the 109...)

With heavy fighters it is even less clear why they should be better than interceptors, unless we differ on the concept itself.
In the Luftwaffe there were two general types that can be designated as heavy fighter.

- Zerstoerer, like the Me110, Me210 and Me419
The Zerstoerer was originally envisaged with the Me110 as a heavily armed long range fighter that would sweep the enemy skies clean. With its range and firepower it was the primary long range escort for bombers only to be decimated in that early role by defending interceptors. It later did regain effectiveness as fighter-bomber, night fighter against bombers in the night and heavy fighter against bombers in day time - out of range of escorts. As long as it could operate in a friendly sky it was devastating against bombers.

- up-armed / armored Interceptors (like the Sturmbock)
These “heavy” fighters were specially modified to bring down heavy bombers by adding extra cannon - like the Me109G-6/R6 Kanonenboot with an additional 20mm cannon gondola under each wing, or the Fw190A-8/R2 Sturmbock with extra armor around the pilot and the outer 20mm MG151/20 replaced with 30mm MK108s. Although the latter could be devastating against heavy US bombers, it was an easy prey for US escorts and needed escorts itself to survive in a hostile sky. But even a 109 gunboat would have a hard time against fighters, as the added cannon came at a price of speed and maneuverability.

So what is this generic heavy fighter?

WarPlan is a game not a simulation, but even a game must be able to explain what the model represents within the context of the period and technology represented. Polish tech is different, Italian tech is different etc.

If we look at specific a/c in WW2 it is clear that roughly for the first half of the war range came at the cost of combat performance.
The earliest example of an effective fighter with long range able to take on interceptors on equal footing was the Japanese A6M2 - aka Zero.
We also know the main price that was paid - armor / durability.

Between the A6M2 and P-47M sits a complete war in the Pacifc.

[shri]

Agreed.

My grouse on "HEAVY" was for tanks. Pre 1943 the Heavy tanks like KV or SOMUA or CHURCHILL/CROCODILE were sitting ducks for the Panzerwaffe as they were extremely slow and ponderous. So, heavy should ideally be terrible pre 1942. (yes the KV1 did pose problems but it broke down so easily that it was an overall joke).
From 1943 you have Tigers and IS Tanks and Pershing coming, these were ideal heavies.
So, till 1942 end or 43 beginning the breakthrough tank should run circles around heavies, from 1943 it should be balance. Maybe late 44 and 45 it should be heavies chewing up the breakthrough ones.

Basically, tech being back-loaded for heavies. Basically, till 1942 you get 0 improvement but lose 1 range for every tech increase and then suddenly gain a lot.


Same for Escorts. tech should be back-loaded. Should be sitting ducks till 1942, near parity in 44-45. Basically, till 1942 you get 0 improvement but gain 1 range for every tech increase and then suddenly gain a lot.


Bf109 with its K variant did stand up when it had good pilots against anything the Western Allies threw (when numbers were not extremely lopsided).
The FW190 again, was extremely agile when it wasn't loaded with all that heavy extra armament to shoot bombers.

[Simulacra53]

You can have endless discussions on this topic.

Like you said late model G/K were on par in general performance, but basically late war the 109 was obsolescent, there was no more room for development - speed came at the price of maneuverability and endurance. Also replacing the MG151/20 with Mk108 centerline cannon made sense against bombers, but it was not an ideal weapon for dogfighting - heavy hitting, but ballistic performance. Arguably the 109 peaked with the G-2/4 and degraded with the G-6 and beyond. Talking overall performance. That’s not to say that a Me109G-6/AS could not be a formidable fighter against the best the allies could throw against it in ‘44.

The Fw190 was always less agile than the Me109 and with the radial engine Anton it could not compete at high altitude.
However the D-9 and subsequent Ta152C/H would have been excellent replacements for the Me109 - better all round, including ground handling.

[jjdenver]

I looked at infantry with assault as the base choice and at inf as the challenger.

What role do guns play when attacking? Do they do anything at all or only when defending? Because with the increased defense of the at inf it seems like they get more positive modifiers than the assault type does overall and if guns work in the attack then maybe US should be building at inf from the start for example even though they plan to spend most of their time attacking?

** Also as a separate question - mech don't seem much cheaper than armor to build. Why build any mech at all? Oil consumption seems same, manpower usage same, build cost only slightly less. Thanks.

[AlbertN]

The Germans developed late dogfight fighters because on the Soviet front their fighters (and mostly pilots) were far better than the Soviet counterparts.
For what concerns the West their main focus was to protect the Reich and for a long while the bombers were unescorted - so no need to dogfight. Upgun and be less agile, it'll do. Both RAF and USAAF bombing campaign where reaching crisis by end of '43 / early '44 (from the perspective of their losses they could tollerate / define acceptable). It's once the long range USA fighters arrived - paired up with a change of leadership (which changed the policy from -escort the bombers- to -use bombers as bait to maul the Luftwaffe- that things changed).

BUT these matters are just historical debate - since BOTH sides have access to the same technologies, and can also decide what to produce, there should be a clear cut that balances out the various technologies. Since an Escort fighter '45 is pratically also an intereptor that pratically covers Germany whole from 1 airbase.