I tested Tommy's plane today, it totally dominated but it had an unfortunate side effect The AI stopped putting their planes up to contest me, just like when you put too much AA in division's the AI won't put up their CAS. After 6 month's the German airforce flew away and never came back.
@@Cerabelus That's because the new system is unbalanced. Literally Broken . Its always had issues . But even worse now . Kinda sucks paid 20 bucks and the game plays worse LOL Paradox never thinks how war actually works . The reason for dedicated fighters is to counter Air Bombing,Cas Nav Bombing It's not surprising . A country that's not been at war since colonial times .
I just did some retests with TK's design following the exact ruleset + modified and TK's plane still seems to be on top (as of 1.12.7.8fc8) (what I modified: 10.000 IC instead of 5.000 IC, from the 1.1.1936 to 1.1.1937) I tested his plane's against basically the same design except the turret was replaced by a self-sealing fuel tank. My planes start out strong but then dip. TK's plane come out on top after 3 months. By the end of the year I have to yield air superiority because my stockpile would run low.
Should have put a better engine on it, but I was under the impression that speed does not matter (while agility does) so I went with a cheaper engine to squeeze in a couple more extra planes. I shall call it the "Goodenough"
There is even a case that you made the best plane here. copy pasted from my comment: another good comparison would have been the ic tradeoff. Tommy would win here too and Taureor would still be 2nd here. and for smaller nations where every ic loss hurts way more than for a great power the overall ic loss would be a good comparison. Taureor would make the best plane here, where tommy would land in 4th. so while tommy made the best dogfighter, there could be a case that Taureor made the better plane - atleast for smaller nations.
Had this been on the patch we made our designs on, me and Dankus would have been 1 and 2 hæhæ. Air attack was completely busted prior to the patch and you didn't need agility :^)
Tommy won because he puts "." at the start of his division names giving them a +30% attack this is common knowledge please do the test again without this bias
@@Litterbugtaylor it's just not played on the right patch. Him and Bo made their design for the last patch and air attack just recived a nerf. So their position in this top means nothing
I remember somebody saying that it is way easier to achieve air superiority with heavy fighters, despite them trading bad. So maybe multiplayer guys use them to gain bonuses to land combat, instead of waiting to grind opponents' airforce down? Makes no sense tho why they would send them here when rules specifically say it's about dogfights.
they probably just sent whatever they used most often instead of testing out the best of the best like some of the number crunching ytbers or they are coping on their MP builds idk
I found heavies were useful in north Afrika and Asia, especially if your trying to do force projection in areas with very few airfields; 2000 fighters aren't useful if you can only fit 200 and that's when heavy fighters are king.
Heavy Fighers if I recall correctly have longer range then regular fighters. and I think they can also Archive a faster speed (intercept or how fast they can get to the battle space) then the fact they turns like a A-10 is another thing meaning in a 1 vs 1 fight they will usually lose. does not matter if your plane can shot down 10 enemy fighter if it takes a week for it to get to the fight. and I seen that happen (mostly in china) where a intercept plane would take off and the mission would conclude before the plane got there (meaning it did nothing in that air engagement) and thats why the german was looking at the rocket airplane seriously. because if you can get a plane up in the air and to the target faster then the enemy can get its mission done it does not really matter that the first report of said enemy air wing was from a farmer at the french coast and not on the other side of the English canal (Brits and there radar). then the fact that the rocket plane had a habit of becoming a maned rocket missile was another thing.
Well at least you didn't call me Pie Gin. It's Pydgin (pronounced like pigeon) if anyone doesn't know. Anyways, I'm glad they made agility more of a factor now. The plane I had clapped any design at the release of BBA. Bo's and Dankus' design and the higher IC designs would have been up there too. The IC cost didn't matter because you didn't take many losses with high enough air attack and defense.
Keep in mind these are fighters designed to take down other fighters. So what would the results be if they were intercepting bombers plus what is the type and design of said bomber?
I have a feeling that for normal in game circumstances, range significantly helps with finding the enemy planes to dogfight, but for this matchup there was radar and presumably a smaller distance, making it useless except to increase plane cost and drag down viability
That is a good way to design a plane. It wasn’t fully optimized for testing, he added the fuel tank. Speed (and agility) is the 2 most important things for dodgefighting. They keep balancing the stats, but I feel it’s worth going for double engines on small frames. When speeds are relatively close the IC cost will hurt you more, but otherwise, they gonna demolish them.
Could you do a video like this but with ship types? I would love to see everyone's ship builds and see what's effective. It would help me learn the navy better too lol
@@terasa73 sleeping for too long. We haven't been on sub spam meta for two major patches. Subs are still good but won't net you as much naval supremacy anymore
@@miguelrodriguezcimino1674 you're right but I think you can isolate the testing to what the ships purpose is. An example being: what destroyer build is best at killing subs or absorbing damage as a screen. Can just look at raw stats for intended purpose and throw them against the AI navies. Or maybe Dave can use his own designs as the opposing navy. Idk just an idea
The problem with Tommies' design is the range is so damn short. Sure in Europe it will be very good, but anywhere else, even in USSR's further tiles this fighter won't even cover whole zone, and I'm not even talking about Asian tiles or Pacific Ocean's tiles. I want to also add that some of the planes are using that thingy that add defence but increase a rubber cost by one. Surely for UK it won't be a problem with their puppet Malaya, but for other planes, especially Germany, this will add up the cost by either building additional synthetic oil or extra civs for trade ( I'm speaking solely from single player, maybe multiplayer guys has mod that fix this issue)
Okay but you're ignoring all the parameters that were set for this test. You can't invalidate the results of this test by fabricating new scenarios in which the effectiveness is reduced, or adding extra parameters in which the losing planes do better.
Tommys plane doesn't use extra rubber so he also wins in that regard and i'd argue that you should be building airstrips along the way when your coming up against say the USSR as 1) transport planes can still turn the tide in any battle 2) they are quicker to build than entire railways and brand new hubs
@@ronanwaring3408 Transport planes are so bad now, 100 give .2 supply or something now. So an airport with 2000 would only give 4 supply to the region. Wonder if it was over nerfed by accident. Was one of the first things I noticed when trying to push into russia was my transports were not doing much.
Two interesting takes on these results: -the heavier airframes have significantly more range. That doesn't matter over the Benelux, but in most theaters outside of Europe, this will make a difference. -Although Taureor came in 2nd, he has the lowest IC loss in total, meaning that if you really want to preserve your planes (and experience, and aces), his design might be the best one
The IC lost can be quite misleading if you want to factor in experience and aces. He's potentially losing more planes, thus pilots, but since his are so cheap he wins on the IC lost category.
I often put priority on range, because many places in the world lack airfields or the airzones are huge. Tommy's plane is nice, but with 700km range you would strugle with it outside of europe but yeah, the pinned comment goes over this. You always have to consider your IC output, resources and what you want to do with your planes
If you want to recreate my test taking into account those varibles be my guest. We had to take out some varibles out to not over complicate the challenge
I would be interested to see longer engagements, like a proper war time. since the planes that traded a little less efective in IC but much better in raw numbers, will get and maintain much more aces and xp. That could tip the balance, since xp is a massive increase in performance.
11:50 that's why, in scientific research, subsequent studies happen, mistakes can be spotted after the fact and analyzing results allows for better fitting of test subjects
Before i watch the video. I think Pravus, Dankus and Bokoen will have the best ones with Dankus and Bokoen winning in air superiority but in long run and in terms of IC cost will Pravus win.
If you care about IC destroyed vs IC cost, it would make sense to calculate how much more did you destroyed vs. loss. So I calculated IC destroyed - IC loss for each one and the ranking are as follows: Tommy -> 31959 Taureor -> 20525.5 Bitter -> 13440 Discard -> 12828 71Cloak -> 11339.5 Pravus -> 9631 Pydgin -> 4596 Alex -> -8955.5 Ludi -> -10413.5 Bokoen -> -26228.5 Daukus -> -52634.5
Let’s do this with tank design as well, the best design to crash infantry divisions, will you go for more speed to overrun your enemy? More soft attack? More armour? Or breakthrough? It’s gonna be interesting
I enjoyed this video and really appreciate your fostering comadre amongst your fellow YouTubbys. I hope you continue with this informal and fun 'competition' series.
I absolutely did *not* expect Alex, 71Cloak and TommyKay taking places they took, but Bokoen1 was absolutely predictable lol (sorry Bo). Also it would be great to have a similar video on tanks/ships! P.S. but my all-time favorite design will always be the one by ISP, called “I don’t care”.
@@FeedbackGaming he’s just not a meta guy, and he never shows designs, but if he does, those usually are the meme-ish ones like 100 IC strat bomber or a super-heavy battleship. Also I’m almost sure he did say that he doesn’t care about meta designs/compositions a couple times.
Tommykays plane is insane it has 2,5 kill/lost IC ratio and does not cost extra rubber for self-sealing tanks. I would be interested in how much worse my favorite plane would do against it. just change the extra turret for the drop tank.
I find interesting that both the second and third plane design maximized the thrust/weight ratio, one went for the cheap plane the other maximized the attack. Also, while I find the analysis of this test useful, the take away point being do not underestimate agility and speed in the latest patch; the actual designs are not what I would consider "meta" (something you can use everytime and expect good results). The stated goal of the most recent HoI4 updates was to break the meta, not just change it into a new meta. Meaning that specific scenarios need specific designs. Take for example 71cloak design, if he had knew his design was to be tested over the low countries flying from France/Germany, he would have removed the extra fuel tank as airbases in full range are plenty, that would have saved him some IC lost. Also, when you create a plane design, you need to consider your goal. Are you trying to completely destroy the enemy industry? Are you only trying to have green air long enough so your land forces can take enemy territory? Do you have the industry to soak up loses and pay the price for green air?
Would be interesting to see how veterancy fits in to this - high quantity yet high losses means you lose veterans, would be interesting to see if a higher survivability wins out long term
I would argue that that the deciding factor should be decided by Total IC destroyed divided by Total IC lost, to represent the attrition of a long war. Alex's design specifically sticks out as a build that fails to kill enough planes over the long run even though he wins exchanges in the short term. Of course all those numbers are now skewed thanks to the 1 agility fighters being sitting ducks that that reward high attack planes with some agility to shine. If you ever try a round 2, I suggest you let them know that 1 agility is terrible and choose Total IC destroyed/Total IC lost as a deciding metric
Alex's Design is really good for executing a Tank blitz, ie, Encirclement with Tank Divisions and Quick Wars. The IC lost in Air can be compensated with what the enemy loses on the ground(given that you have a supirior armour-mobile force) and the support, that your Air Support gets. For the grind on the Eastern front though (or any other war of attrition or Infantry based Armies) the TommyKay is definetly the King, ie, cost effective light frames.
Superior German engineering Which is ironic cuz it looks like he made Il-2 or some other Soviet fighter with a turret that actually existed but it was shit irl
Awesome comparison! Just wanted to add that while heavy fighters didn't do amazingly, that's kind of expected. They have the advantage of superior range (and less importantly better air base capacity efficiency). So nice to see that they are at least almost competitive to light fighters, because I really like them for the improved range. TommyKay's fighter was awesome for the scope of this competition, but if used in a real game 720km range just seems really inflexible.
The only problem with tommy's design is the 720 range is very low. It absolutely wouldn't be able to used to attack other air tiles. Although I guess if you're only going to be defending then it's ok.
If you have a big enough industry you could focus on both defense and offense. Take Tommy's design and attach them Frontline units, while using the #2 plane for longer range engagements. Two effective planes
@@mrsaanes except if you're gonna be attacking then you need to have all your planes up against all of theirs. If you only have say half your planes fighting but they have all their planes fighting then your planes will get shredded.
@@victordiaz6892 well that's why I said if you have a big enough industry. I at times find myself with more military factories then I need as a major. As a minor Id take Tommy's design. But if I'm playing a major, or if I manage to do unify Austria Hungary, or the Swizz. Then I find a big enough industry to support both my units with anti air and air
@@mrsaanesThat point is moot. if you have enough Industry that you can win the air war with half your air force then you've just won the game. Splitting up your air force is always a bad idea and should only be done if you have no other option. Better to just make all your fighters longer range so they can all fight together rather than fight split up and suffer from defeat in detail
It's funny how i have been thinking about adding turret to my small fighters just 2 days ago. But since i didn't have any actual dogfights happening, i just went into CAS designs, and left it hanging for future wars.
I really like this "tier list!" The only thing i would change is also take into consideration the manpower cost of losing the planes because there are nations like greece or bulgaria that start smaller and cant field a massive amount of expendable pilots
I play lotsa flight simulators. Speed is indeed a key factor, for one quite simple reason: You get to decide if you want to have the fight. Enemy has superiority in numbers and you're out of ammo, but your plane is faster? Cool, you can escape and they can't catch you. Enemy is unaware of you, below you, and your plane is faster? Give him a chase and shoot him down, he can't escape. You and the enemy are both aware of each other, but his plane is faster? He will climb above you, will obtain both potential and actual energy advantage and eventually shred you with dive & climb attacks. You can't escape because your plane is slower. Glad they made speed a bigger factor.
Taureor usually has good strategies in his videos. I like him, but he always seems like he can't be bothered to min max or even do a little micro, for that matter. I'm surprised he came up with a design that performed that well.
I heard that heavy machine gun is the meta so kind of expected TommyKay’s design is the winner but I also doubted that if it can go up against those mega defensive heavy bois, I mean sure it’s a good design against AI but against players design? Wow, the result is actually surprising.
The win/loss totals for AlexTheRambler were swapped. He had 2-8, not 8-2. That brings the overall win/loss to 54-54 instead of 60 wins and only 48 losses and fits the IC totals.
It may be worth then, creating the cheapest planes possible, just a rubbish air frame and a few guns and small engine, because although it would likely get bodied hard, the production advantage might make it a winner over all
That is pretty much how the Soviets beat Germany in the air. The German planes were far superior models with veteran pilots, easily worth 5 soviet planes each. Unfortunately for them, the soviets were fielding a 10-to-1 advantage.
@@FuelDropforthewin Unless you consider IL-2 to be a fighter, then Germany had way more Bf-109's than any of the Soviet models. Combining Bf-109 and Fw-190, Germans had way more fighters than Soviet union. German superiority my ass
another good comparison would have been the ic tradeoff. Tommy would win here too and Taureor would still be 2nd here. and for smaller nations where every ic loss hurts way more than for a great power the overall ic loss would be a good comparison. Taureor would make the best plane here, where tommy would land in 4th. so while tommy made the best dogfighter, there could be a case that Taureor made the better plane - atleast for smaller nations.
@@FeedbackGaming In Plane Designer under Stats. If the plane has more than one role can select adjusters and the stats change. When 'Fighter' is only allowed role adjusters don't change stats.
Extra Discussion
pastebin.com/0zFnbg4d
I tested Tommy's plane today, it totally dominated but it had an unfortunate side effect
The AI stopped putting their planes up to contest me, just like when you put too much AA in division's the AI won't put up their CAS.
After 6 month's the German airforce flew away and never came back.
@@Cerabelus That's because the new system is unbalanced. Literally Broken . Its always had issues . But even worse now . Kinda sucks paid 20 bucks and the game plays worse LOL Paradox never thinks how war actually works . The reason for dedicated fighters is to counter Air Bombing,Cas Nav Bombing It's not surprising . A country that's not been at war since colonial times .
@@Cerabelus That's because the AP value on Anti-Air is a explote.
I just did some retests with TK's design following the exact ruleset + modified and TK's plane still seems to be on top (as of 1.12.7.8fc8)
(what I modified: 10.000 IC instead of 5.000 IC, from the 1.1.1936 to 1.1.1937)
I tested his plane's against basically the same design except the turret was replaced by a self-sealing fuel tank. My planes start out strong but then dip. TK's plane come out on top after 3 months. By the end of the year I have to yield air superiority because my stockpile would run low.
Should have put a better engine on it, but I was under the impression that speed does not matter (while agility does) so I went with a cheaper engine to squeeze in a couple more extra planes. I shall call it the "Goodenough"
incredibly based Taureor as usual
There is even a case that you made the best plane here.
copy pasted from my comment:
another good comparison would have been the ic tradeoff. Tommy would win here too and Taureor would still be 2nd here. and for smaller nations where every ic loss hurts way more than for a great power the overall ic loss would be a good comparison. Taureor would make the best plane here, where tommy would land in 4th. so while tommy made the best dogfighter, there could be a case that Taureor made the better plane - atleast for smaller nations.
Can't go wrong with a hurricane design, worked well for britain.
Taureor the one and only, you won in our hearts. Maximum chad you are :)
5/5 , Balanced as all things must be
No comments let me fix that
GG EZ
precision german engineering
that german engineering at play
another W for Tommy Empire
Wir sind sehr stolz auf dich
"Doitsu no kagaku wa sekai ichi!"
Huh. I admit, I didn't quite expect to make it that far. Neat!
You deserve a cookie.
Absolutely lovely to know one of my favorite number guys is on the podium.
Had this been on the patch we made our designs on, me and Dankus would have been 1 and 2 hæhæ. Air attack was completely busted prior to the patch and you didn't need agility :^)
They demolished air attack in the latest patch
Brokekoen1
CopeKoen1
Shilkoen1
@Krzysztof Milański Bro this is a video game, chill
I hadnt played a single game with the new fighter design when I submitted it so it was a gamble 💀
Whats your current design?
They said my planes are weak
@@FeedbackGaming i just exploit ;)
@@DankusMemecus who doesn't?
@@DankusMemecus shut up noob
Dankus a day later:They fear my planes...
They said my planes were weak...
They said my planes were for a different patch but then they still used them...
Only if "they" is his pilots.
Esports Green air Alta
Tommy won because he puts "." at the start of his division names giving them a +30% attack
this is common knowledge
please do the test again without this bias
how to inflate TommyKay's ego to even more dangerous hights
We're never gonna stop hearing about this
And i love that it blew up in dankus' face
@@Litterbugtaylor it's just not played on the right patch. Him and Bo made their design for the last patch and air attack just recived a nerf. So their position in this top means nothing
@@lafaucheuse2001 see, meta monkeys, they lost on the most recent patch so now they'll just copy Tommy
@@Litterbugtaylor you really are 12 aren't you ?
Huh. I was expecting Taureor's plane design to be pure infantry on aggressive
Yep. The best plane is infantry division controlling airfield.
He would be battle planning the air field lmao
Why need planes when you can just infantry rush the airfield?
-some guy
It was very fitting that his plane was the cheapest one, even saving IC cost on the engine level
I remember somebody saying that it is way easier to achieve air superiority with heavy fighters, despite them trading bad. So maybe multiplayer guys use them to gain bonuses to land combat, instead of waiting to grind opponents' airforce down? Makes no sense tho why they would send them here when rules specifically say it's about dogfights.
Check the pinned message. MP meta planes are least effective in this scenario
they probably just sent whatever they used most often instead of testing out the best of the best like some of the number crunching ytbers or they are coping on their MP builds idk
I found heavies were useful in north Afrika and Asia, especially if your trying to do force projection in areas with very few airfields; 2000 fighters aren't useful if you can only fit 200 and that's when heavy fighters are king.
Most MP games are also heavily modded and may use older versions.
Heavy Fighers if I recall correctly have longer range then regular fighters.
and I think they can also Archive a faster speed (intercept or how fast they can get to the battle space) then the fact they turns like a A-10 is another thing meaning in a 1 vs 1 fight they will usually lose.
does not matter if your plane can shot down 10 enemy fighter if it takes a week for it to get to the fight. and I seen that happen (mostly in china) where a intercept plane would take off and the mission would conclude before the plane got there (meaning it did nothing in that air engagement) and thats why the german was looking at the rocket airplane seriously.
because if you can get a plane up in the air and to the target faster then the enemy can get its mission done it does not really matter that the first report of said enemy air wing was from a farmer at the french coast and not on the other side of the English canal (Brits and there radar).
then the fact that the rocket plane had a habit of becoming a maned rocket missile was another thing.
Well at least you didn't call me Pie Gin. It's Pydgin (pronounced like pigeon) if anyone doesn't know. Anyways, I'm glad they made agility more of a factor now. The plane I had clapped any design at the release of BBA. Bo's and Dankus' design and the higher IC designs would have been up there too. The IC cost didn't matter because you didn't take many losses with high enough air attack and defense.
Love you very much Piedguy
Keep in mind these are fighters designed to take down other fighters.
So what would the results be if they were intercepting bombers plus what is the type and design of said bomber?
Good question. A test for another day
@@FeedbackGaming Maybe a good chance to test rocket engine interceptors
@@FeedbackGaming Bomber vs Bomber dogfight test when?
Clearly my plane was the best, but it was a romanian design, so it received a bribe from the opponent to lose.
Tbh if you design a plane that has a build cost of 100, every one shot down is a horrible loss
Ah yes the King German himself makes the best plain while also apparently half assing it, a true TommyKay moment.
I would want a tank version of same video
I expected 71Cloak to win this easily
If it was on the old patch he might've
@@FeedbackGaming the ic cost of the fuel tank might have drop it lower
Never doubt our lord and savior TommyKay. Orc strategy wins every time.
I have a feeling that for normal in game circumstances, range significantly helps with finding the enemy planes to dogfight, but for this matchup there was radar and presumably a smaller distance, making it useless except to increase plane cost and drag down viability
That is a good way to design a plane. It wasn’t fully optimized for testing, he added the fuel tank.
Speed (and agility) is the 2 most important things for dodgefighting. They keep balancing the stats, but I feel it’s worth going for double engines on small frames. When speeds are relatively close the IC cost will hurt you more, but otherwise, they gonna demolish them.
Could you do a video like this but with ship types? I would love to see everyone's ship builds and see what's effective. It would help me learn the navy better too lol
Isn't it just sub 3 spam? Or was I sleeping too long?
@@terasa73 sleeping for too long. We haven't been on sub spam meta for two major patches. Subs are still good but won't net you as much naval supremacy anymore
Yes! And also with tanks
Ships designs are a bit harder to test, because you need to also consider fleet composition
@@miguelrodriguezcimino1674 you're right but I think you can isolate the testing to what the ships purpose is. An example being: what destroyer build is best at killing subs or absorbing damage as a screen. Can just look at raw stats for intended purpose and throw them against the AI navies. Or maybe Dave can use his own designs as the opposing navy. Idk just an idea
The problem with Tommies' design is the range is so damn short. Sure in Europe it will be very good, but anywhere else, even in USSR's further tiles this fighter won't even cover whole zone, and I'm not even talking about Asian tiles or Pacific Ocean's tiles. I want to also add that some of the planes are using that thingy that add defence but increase a rubber cost by one. Surely for UK it won't be a problem with their puppet Malaya, but for other planes, especially Germany, this will add up the cost by either building additional synthetic oil or extra civs for trade ( I'm speaking solely from single player, maybe multiplayer guys has mod that fix this issue)
Okay but you're ignoring all the parameters that were set for this test. You can't invalidate the results of this test by fabricating new scenarios in which the effectiveness is reduced, or adding extra parameters in which the losing planes do better.
@@Kain292 He’s just saying that not all of these planes would work as well as they did in this test
Tommys plane doesn't use extra rubber so he also wins in that regard and i'd argue that you should be building airstrips along the way when your coming up against say the USSR as 1) transport planes can still turn the tide in any battle 2) they are quicker to build than entire railways and brand new hubs
@@ronanwaring3408 Transport planes are so bad now, 100 give .2 supply or something now. So an airport with 2000 would only give 4 supply to the region. Wonder if it was over nerfed by accident. Was one of the first things I noticed when trying to push into russia was my transports were not doing much.
@@Azsunes I thought they buffed it again in the last couple of patches
Maybe the GREATEST Plane design are the friends we made along the way.
BASED
Alex beating Bo and Dankus is hilarious.
You had me at "spreadsheets"
Two interesting takes on these results: -the heavier airframes have significantly more range. That doesn't matter over the Benelux, but in most theaters outside of Europe, this will make a difference. -Although Taureor came in 2nd, he has the lowest IC loss in total, meaning that if you really want to preserve your planes (and experience, and aces), his design might be the best one
The IC lost can be quite misleading if you want to factor in experience and aces. He's potentially losing more planes, thus pilots, but since his are so cheap he wins on the IC lost category.
...of course Dankus and Bo would send in a fighter design with less agility than a B-29 and enough firepower to outgun an AA battery.
Truly a Bruhkoem moment
Of course the engineer (pravus) will have the best balanced plane.
Shocking, I know.
I was actually curious to see how a low-agility, high-attack cannon fighter would stack up. Glad to make the podium!
@@PravusGaming OMG,big fan been subscribed to you for 4 years+❤️❤️❤️
Cheers, bud!
I often put priority on range, because many places in the world lack airfields or the airzones are huge. Tommy's plane is nice, but with 700km range you would strugle with it outside of europe
but yeah, the pinned comment goes over this. You always have to consider your IC output, resources and what you want to do with your planes
If you want to recreate my test taking into account those varibles be my guest. We had to take out some varibles out to not over complicate the challenge
Nah, there are so so many variables, but that's why it's fun and why I like the airplane designer
I'm pretty sure Bokoen cares more about the fact that he placed above Dankus (by winning against him lol), than overall place.
I would be interested to see longer engagements, like a proper war time. since the planes that traded a little less efective in IC but much better in raw numbers, will get and maintain much more aces and xp. That could tip the balance, since xp is a massive increase in performance.
A fair test would include short and longer battles
11:50 that's why, in scientific research, subsequent studies happen, mistakes can be spotted after the fact and analyzing results allows for better fitting of test subjects
TommyKay be like: JA MANN WAS HAST DU DENN GEDACHT? NATÜRLICH WIRD MEIN FLUGZEUG GEWINNEN. ICH BIN OSMANE JA
Before i watch the video. I think Pravus, Dankus and Bokoen will have the best ones with Dankus and Bokoen winning in air superiority but in long run and in terms of IC cost will Pravus win.
Didn't expect that result, did you? :P
Sorry to let you down. Overall performed quite well, though.
If you care about IC destroyed vs IC cost, it would make sense to calculate how much more did you destroyed vs. loss. So I calculated IC destroyed - IC loss for each one and the ranking are as follows:
Tommy -> 31959
Taureor -> 20525.5
Bitter -> 13440
Discard -> 12828
71Cloak -> 11339.5
Pravus -> 9631
Pydgin -> 4596
Alex -> -8955.5
Ludi -> -10413.5
Bokoen -> -26228.5
Daukus -> -52634.5
Let’s do this with tank design as well, the best design to crash infantry divisions, will you go for more speed to overrun your enemy? More soft attack? More armour? Or breakthrough? It’s gonna be interesting
Great video idea! Pitting theorycrafting RUclipsrs against each other to see what designs/builds are worth their salt is great content!
Alex winning 4th only to be moved to last on a second take some how really matches him.
I enjoyed this video and really appreciate your fostering comadre amongst your fellow YouTubbys. I hope you continue with this informal and fun 'competition' series.
I absolutely did *not* expect Alex, 71Cloak and TommyKay taking places they took, but Bokoen1 was absolutely predictable lol (sorry Bo).
Also it would be great to have a similar video on tanks/ships!
P.S. but my all-time favorite design will always be the one by ISP, called “I don’t care”.
Ha, what's the isp reference?
@@FeedbackGaming he’s just not a meta guy, and he never shows designs, but if he does, those usually are the meme-ish ones like 100 IC strat bomber or a super-heavy battleship.
Also I’m almost sure he did say that he doesn’t care about meta designs/compositions a couple times.
Makes sense. Let him do him
if it was about tanks I think everyone already knows the winner xD
@@_tym3k yes its Bokoen1 💯
Tommykays plane is insane it has 2,5 kill/lost IC ratio and does not cost extra rubber for self-sealing tanks. I would be interested in how much worse my favorite plane would do against it. just change the extra turret for the drop tank.
Tommy-Plane basically
“if you fast enough the enemy can't shoot you. Put more guns on ze plane, Hanz!”
German engineer is the world's finest.
I find interesting that both the second and third plane design maximized the thrust/weight ratio, one went for the cheap plane the other maximized the attack.
Also, while I find the analysis of this test useful, the take away point being do not underestimate agility and speed in the latest patch; the actual designs are not what I would consider "meta" (something you can use everytime and expect good results). The stated goal of the most recent HoI4 updates was to break the meta, not just change it into a new meta. Meaning that specific scenarios need specific designs. Take for example 71cloak design, if he had knew his design was to be tested over the low countries flying from France/Germany, he would have removed the extra fuel tank as airbases in full range are plenty, that would have saved him some IC lost.
Also, when you create a plane design, you need to consider your goal. Are you trying to completely destroy the enemy industry? Are you only trying to have green air long enough so your land forces can take enemy territory? Do you have the industry to soak up loses and pay the price for green air?
Would be interesting to see how veterancy fits in to this - high quantity yet high losses means you lose veterans, would be interesting to see if a higher survivability wins out long term
It would be nice to see an updated design from all of them on the current patch, since those designs were made for the old patch :p
Yeah I feel like the idea was fantastic, but because of this it's kinda useless...
I didn't expect these results. I don't think Tommy did either.
You know... it could be an amazing series. Best cas, best tank, best template. And then we will see who is "The Ultimate Warrior of HOI4"!
I would argue that that the deciding factor should be decided by Total IC destroyed divided by Total IC lost, to represent the attrition of a long war. Alex's design specifically sticks out as a build that fails to kill enough planes over the long run even though he wins exchanges in the short term. Of course all those numbers are now skewed thanks to the 1 agility fighters being sitting ducks that that reward high attack planes with some agility to shine.
If you ever try a round 2, I suggest you let them know that 1 agility is terrible and choose Total IC destroyed/Total IC lost as a deciding metric
I’d like to see a line graph of IC loss over time, we might see expensive plans do well in sorter battles etc
Alex's Design is really good for executing a Tank blitz, ie, Encirclement with Tank Divisions and Quick Wars. The IC lost in Air can be compensated with what the enemy loses on the ground(given that you have a supirior armour-mobile force) and the support, that your Air Support gets.
For the grind on the Eastern front though (or any other war of attrition or Infantry based Armies) the TommyKay is definetly the King, ie, cost effective light frames.
I do think you need to factor in range in a test like this.
i thought taureor would make a cas for his 20w pure infantry
Superior German engineering
Which is ironic cuz it looks like he made Il-2 or some other Soviet fighter with a turret that actually existed but it was shit irl
That was a really great idea Dave. Would love to see the same for tanks!
Mans really said german genes helped Tommy when in reality it was the crown up tommy's head for being the best japan player
Awesome comparison!
Just wanted to add that while heavy fighters didn't do amazingly, that's kind of expected. They have the advantage of superior range (and less importantly better air base capacity efficiency). So nice to see that they are at least almost competitive to light fighters, because I really like them for the improved range. TommyKay's fighter was awesome for the scope of this competition, but if used in a real game 720km range just seems really inflexible.
Did you seriously just say "the spirit of the third Reich lives deep inside TommyKay?" 😂
The only problem with tommy's design is the 720 range is very low. It absolutely wouldn't be able to used to attack other air tiles. Although I guess if you're only going to be defending then it's ok.
If you have a big enough industry you could focus on both defense and offense. Take Tommy's design and attach them Frontline units, while using the #2 plane for longer range engagements. Two effective planes
@@mrsaanes except if you're gonna be attacking then you need to have all your planes up against all of theirs. If you only have say half your planes fighting but they have all their planes fighting then your planes will get shredded.
@@victordiaz6892 well that's why I said if you have a big enough industry. I at times find myself with more military factories then I need as a major. As a minor Id take Tommy's design. But if I'm playing a major, or if I manage to do unify Austria Hungary, or the Swizz. Then I find a big enough industry to support both my units with anti air and air
@@mrsaanesThat point is moot. if you have enough Industry that you can win the air war with half your air force then you've just won the game. Splitting up your air force is always a bad idea and should only be done if you have no other option. Better to just make all your fighters longer range so they can all fight together rather than fight split up and suffer from defeat in detail
It's funny how i have been thinking about adding turret to my small fighters just 2 days ago.
But since i didn't have any actual dogfights happening, i just went into CAS designs, and left it hanging for future wars.
content creator tank-on-tank when?
I really like this "tier list!" The only thing i would change is also take into consideration the manpower cost of losing the planes because there are nations like greece or bulgaria that start smaller and cant field a massive amount of expendable pilots
Good OL Rambler Try 😂, he got 4th amazing
😅
Taureor v Tommykay when?
I would pay to see that Germany v soviets game
YOU THINK TOMMYS GETTING OLD? YOU THINK TOMMYS OUT OF THE META AND JUST A FAT GINGER BOOMER? NO. HE IS THE KING!!!
I heard that in Tommy's voice
@@carltonleboss faxx
I never throw on the largest engines unless I have to. It increases production cost so much
Seems to be meta
I always used the tommykay design but instead of the turret i put drop tanks for that extra bit of range
as a Pole I am glad that we have another silver metal. even though it's not the olympics XD
I would love to see a cas and a infantry template one
WE NEED MORE ! MORE OF THIS CONTENT !
surprised you didnt tried to compare destroyed/loss ratio at the end
I play lotsa flight simulators. Speed is indeed a key factor, for one quite simple reason: You get to decide if you want to have the fight.
Enemy has superiority in numbers and you're out of ammo, but your plane is faster? Cool, you can escape and they can't catch you.
Enemy is unaware of you, below you, and your plane is faster? Give him a chase and shoot him down, he can't escape.
You and the enemy are both aware of each other, but his plane is faster? He will climb above you, will obtain both potential and actual energy advantage and eventually shred you with dive & climb attacks. You can't escape because your plane is slower.
Glad they made speed a bigger factor.
So Tommy essentially builds an il-2 fighter and wins. Sounds about right
Taureor usually has good strategies in his videos. I like him, but he always seems like he can't be bothered to min max or even do a little micro, for that matter. I'm surprised he came up with a design that performed that well.
I heard that heavy machine gun is the meta so kind of expected TommyKay’s design is the winner but I also doubted that if it can go up against those mega defensive heavy bois, I mean sure it’s a good design against AI but against players design? Wow, the result is actually surprising.
'1941 tech' the cannons 2 are 1943 now
Dave, make one also with tanks
Ending is awesome
Make a tank and ship desing conpetition like this pleaseeeeee!!!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The win/loss totals for AlexTheRambler were swapped. He had 2-8, not 8-2. That brings the overall win/loss to 54-54 instead of 60 wins and only 48 losses and fits the IC totals.
oh the great plane design
Awesome video, love the collaboration!
You should’ve looked at the destroyed/loss IC ratio quite interesting from my excel sheet
Now please the big youbers tank battle. Place: Kursk.
Could you do another one of these for CAS? This is really interesting and informative.
It took me a while to notice the destiny 2 background music
wow the IC destroyed vs lost, top 3 vs the rest, also difference vs 1st 2nd and 3rd...
we need another column, ic destroyed/ic lost to see which is the most effective fighter per ic, which i believe would be taureors there
It may be worth then, creating the cheapest planes possible, just a rubbish air frame and a few guns and small engine, because although it would likely get bodied hard, the production advantage might make it a winner over all
That is pretty much how the Soviets beat Germany in the air. The German planes were far superior models with veteran pilots, easily worth 5 soviet planes each.
Unfortunately for them, the soviets were fielding a 10-to-1 advantage.
@@FuelDropforthewin Unless you consider IL-2 to be a fighter, then Germany had way more Bf-109's than any of the Soviet models. Combining Bf-109 and Fw-190, Germans had way more fighters than Soviet union. German superiority my ass
So from all the heavy plane try hards the good old Rambler try beat out Bokoen and Dankus?
Me who only making real life templates💀 (sometimes extra fuel tanks)
RP is the best
another good comparison would have been the ic tradeoff. Tommy would win here too and Taureor would still be 2nd here. and for smaller nations where every ic loss hurts way more than for a great power the overall ic loss would be a good comparison. Taureor would make the best plane here, where tommy would land in 4th. so while tommy made the best dogfighter, there could be a case that Taureor made the better plane - atleast for smaller nations.
That is funny how 71cloack is known as "Excel spreadsheet guy"
German engineering at its finest
If flying your aircraft directly into the enemy is going to result in a net gain then it's safe to assume low cost high speed is the kicker
Great video. Confused by the 'Adjusters'. Do they matter?
Adjusters?
@@FeedbackGaming In Plane Designer under Stats. If the plane has more than one role can select adjusters and the stats change. When 'Fighter' is only allowed role adjusters don't change stats.
All planes are on air superiority mission
I made a heavy fighter that have range like strategic bombers and the ability to do CAS, Fighter and Strategic bombers.
I expected to see ISP in here kinda sad to see he wasn't
I asked him
Congrats tommy k and shout out to the rambler!!
Cool video, but why is Destiny 2 background music playing? lol didnt know Feedback played D2
Out of curiosity are you going to make the table public?
I like how none of these results make any sense. Low IC is the main factor, though.