HOI4 Fighters vs Heavy Fighters | Which are Better? (Hearts of Iron 4 Guide)

which are better fighters or heavy fighters in hearts of iron iv? we test heavy fighters and fighters in hoi4 to try and figure out which is all around better and for what type of missions, we test interception, dogfights, strat bombers, and even air supperiority and see who truly comes out on top, this is multiplayer approved btw
🙂To See My Story and Support Me Check me Out on Patreon
/ dustinl796
Check out more amazing videos here 👉 goo.gl/Nz9vKs
Social links to stay up to date on new videos😀
►👊Twitter / topgunguy123
►Instagram bit.ly/1Rx03LM
►Discord / discord

[@davidlee883]

Hoi4 game mechanics: pilot dies, the entire ground crew also die

[@uranopolit9642]

They commit suicide cuz they all loved this guy :(

[@kyleleeson2275]

REGGIE

[@SnowTrooper98]

crash landing on the entire crew i guess

[@vuktodic1356]

I first thought that they maybe get dissmised and are sent back to manpower pool waiting for new plane but they simply die somehow lol

[@hayhaa1984]

explains why the planes are so big on the map, the entire ground crew jump in alongside the pilot.

[@BustedHipGaming]

Heavy fighters are just flat-out better for defending against strategic bombing because they can actually DESTROY enemy bombers, not just DISRUPT them. That means they defend against the attack AND cost the enemy the resources spent producing the bomber, which is more valuable in the long run than what light fighters do. Light fighters just deter, and the bombers go home, and come back in larger and larger numbers.

[@DreadX10]

Total bombing sorties: Hvy fighter: 52.180 (59%=30.786) Fighter: 65.949 (51% = 33.634) Seems that hvy's suppress bombers better than fght's. Fighters allow for 25% more bombing-sorties but only get 11,8% (19,9/17,8*100%) more damaged buildings. Was weather a factor in this test?

[@clordias101]

Your tests aren't accounting for the fact that there are 8 anti-air guns over Northern France. Weather might also be a factor in the tests as well as the range of the fighters (varying degrees of mission efficency). You'd need to do multiple controlled tests across a wide variety of air regions in order to get accurate data to formulate a precise answer, and even then you'd have to compare each tier of aircraft plus incorperating air experience to better simulate a multiplayer mathc. Loads more work to be done dude but I'm glad we have Hoi4 content creators questioning ingrained doctrine! Keep it up.

[@alexanderholt4679]

Anti-Air damages attacking air units and reduces damage from bombing. Note that the Anti-Air emplacement only attacks those aircraft attacking the state, not units within the state. This means strategic, tactical, and naval bombers that attack buildings or ports will possibly take damage if there are Anti-Air emplacements, but enemy fighters flying air superiority missions in the state do not take damage. From the wiki

[@dustinl796]

Aa doesnt effect anything on air sup, or intercept, only cas and strat bombing

[@lite4998]

Dustinl796 Videos That seems weird.

[@dustinl796]

Totally agree

[@steckrubenzahler2772]

@@lite4998 actually not, fighters wouldnt search for their prey close to fortified areas armed with anti-air, and dogfights typically took place at 4000m and above. It would be nearly impossible to avoid hitting a friendly plane at those ranges.

[@stupidburp]

Level 1 stock heavy fighters are competitive against level 1 stock fighters. At level 2 and 3 the fighters pull ahead. The reasons for this is that level 1 fighters frequently have insufficient range for 100% coverage and the gap between speeds gets wider at higher levels. Heavy fighters are good for covering areas that are otherwise too far or large to cover effectively and can be tasked as defensive bomber interceptors when not needed for long range missions.

[@Noah-yy1kv]

Y'all comparing heavy fighter and fighters when im here inventing medium fighters

[@dustinl796]

Uhh....... wut?

[@calamatias4568]

NoahLovesGames Im Already a Lot of Medium Fighter Concepts ahead of you.

[@calamatias4568]

Dustinl796 Videos it is When you Basically have a Fighter with Range 2,Reliability 3,Weapons 4 and speed 2 That Basically is a Medium Fighter

[@Noah-yy1kv]

@@calamatias4568 im inventing a whole new class here ain't no upgrades for any fighters

[@calamatias4568]

NoahLovesGames In hearts of iron you have to Make them By Upgrading but i will have to learn how to Programm to add some into hoi4

[@sdferwte234]

One of your constants that you are using for your formula is favoring heavy fighters over regular fighters. It is the range. Using northern France is bad because 100% range is for heavy fighters, less than 100% efficiency for regular fighters. Try using a smaller theater where both fighters have one hundred percent range efficiency. That will assist with more accurate numbers.

[@dustinl796]

Its still 94% for the fighters and i just tested with bhutan and tibet, still very close results

[@fkjl4717]

@@dustinl796 There is one more: Detection, controlled territory gives you 10% bonus detection , while enemy without territory got only 1-2 % detection.

[@dustinl796]

Hmm, thats interesting. Still tho its kinda crazy how close they get

[@sdferwte234]

another thing to think about, anti-aircraft guns perhaps fighting over the English channel would alleviate that issue. instead of plain for plain, industrial cost versus industrial cost. You'll get more fighters and less heavy fighters however that would definitely closer equate to which is better. Just my opinion. I would run it at least five times and then swap sides. Germans have fighters for 5 and then heavy fighters for 5, same with the British. Perhaps even switch to other countries.

[@dustinl796]

Aa guns dont engadge fighters or heavy fighters in hoi4

[@final7581]

As Germany you could easily rush heavy fighter 3, this could be useful if you're playing singleplayer or in mp where no one rushes fighters

[@AunknownMan]

I always do, and oh boy, nobody gets on my way

[@final7581]

@@AunknownMan time to tr it out

[@klobiforpresident2254]

>MP where no one rushes fighters The only time I see fighters not being rushed is house rules.

[@Pipo2954]

From an Historic Point of View Planes were most vulnerable during the take off and landing. Due to the larger Range of the Heavy Fighters they could just wait until the Fighters are out of fuel and stalk them to their Bases and take them down in the approach to land. I don‘t believe that HOI 4 has an historical Accuracy to consinder such Things but under real Conditions it would make Sense to me.

[@andrewmattox1233]

This is a great point. Fuel and the amount of ammo on the planes where always major factors. Once either of those run out, the plane is pretty much defenseless. But yeah, I don't think HOI4 factors any of this in directly either. It is just the stats difference.

[@Myuutsuu85]

Yeah, that was pretty much the only way to shoot down a Me-262

[@theelectricwalrus]

Comparing 500 fighters to 500 heavy fighters is not entirely fair, since they have different production costs. If there get to be more fighters, since they're cheaper to make, i bet the fighters would win air superiority.

[@Stlaind]

It really would be more interesting to see same cost comparisons rather than same numbers. If I can get pretty close numbers from the cheaper 500 fighters than if I try to build the same number of heavy fighters. 583 fighters being the production break even would more interesting. Adding in range differences favoring heavy fighters it makes the test fairly skewed. That said, range can be a big deal and that alone can sometimes drive using heavy fighters. Africa and if you're land basing fighters in the pacific the extra starting range can make a big difference there. I suspect it's a lot more situational than this test would suggest.

[@alexanderholt4679]

@@Stlaind not really. in multiplayer games players are often limited to the amount of airplanes who can fit inside an airport. This means that if heavy fighters do better then having 2k of those ill be better than 2k normal fighters. that heavy fighters also got more range means more airfields further away can still be used

[@dustinl796]

Ill more than likely soon do another test sense people are pointing a few issues out

[@dustinl796]

Yea shoulda done it that way, srry

[@lucadavidson3936]

Light fighters are 85% cheaper to make for production cost, but heavy fighters are 80% cheaper to produce for resource cost. It's true through there are a lot of variables. For 150 alu you could be producing 50 factories worth of light fighters or 75 factories worth of heavy fighters. That's 50% more factories! Does that balance out the cheaper production time of the light fighters? It's subjective, I don't know myself.

[@veteran_dino]

Only the OGs of the channel remember the times when KZbin Hero was the only patreon

[@redcoatlegion1183]

Oh yah, that lasted for like quite some time.

[@dustinl796]

A very long time

[@constantingeorgica5435]

do a vid about super heavy tanks and if them can be use efectivly in mp somehow

[@dustinl796]

Heavys are fun but very problematic. Mostly only good as space marines

[@dustinl796]

Agrred

[@dustinl796]

On my main channel page but its inactive

[@gildedphoenix]

You're better off using Heavy TDs. They're much cheaper, much less ic cost, and does the job pretty much the same. Of course, they are fun but, historically accurate in its practicality.

[@tedarcher9120]

@Oge super heavies in reality aren't much more expensive than heavies. Late game it is advised to have one batallion of them in heavy tank divisions

[@waencirion]

As a general rule I only do regular fighters if I want a carrier fleet due to research. If you're not in western Europe the range and air superiority per airfield capacity becomes more important than every other factor except perhaps manpower.

[@Nederlanderssss]

This is what I like about your videos! You actually ask confimation from the community. It gives great read ups for me and strengthen my game.

[@maDbiL]

I experience it before. Was playing Japan in single player and my carrier based tier3 fighter numbering 200 or so got wiped out by heavy fighters. I already upgrade their engine to level 5 so that I can have better agility but I still got wiped out. Aniwae, another good video from you that always create more question and healthy discussion.

[@dustinl796]

Gotta love hoi4 😂

[@acsimark]

I personaly like heavy fighters better with TAC bombers, then light fighters with CAS. You can get air sup higher , you can free up front supply,, has a better resource balance for refinery, also covers advencements better, you not have to secure airfields

[@dustinl796]

Well if hes doing mp alot of servers now allow strat bombing with tacs but strat bombers are banned

[@fkjl4717]

Mark, sorry, But you are wrong. TACs got very low levels of ground support , even if got airsuperiority you cant use it well with TACs. TACs are good addition for naval force , as good range is important at seas but very bad in other areas. Support is for CAS, Bombing is for STRATs.

[@acsimark]

@@fkjl4717 as Hungary I do a lot of air volunteery, early on its very good addition that I can send support from more then 1 state airfields, as the volunteery limit is low based on the amount planes you have, this way I can use all of them as it covers the area more. Exempel, I had 150 TAC in France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Danmark when the Germans started their advencment to the west. Or in the chinese war, I was able to do bombing from Hongkond, Free France, the state over it, and China it self. All together I was able to swarm the air with more planes get air sup and start bombing.. in any other plan combination this would not be possible. All in all considering mission efficency and dmg for IC is more efficient in most situation imo. TAC also have future versions which are able to get the same CAS potential(offset25% penelety) I had lot of situation when mission efficency was lower then 75%, so I had dmd penelety with the same number of planes.

[@stupidburp]

@@acsimark is correct. Tactical bombers tend to be more practical than close air support on offense because the much greater range more than makes up for the lower ground support stats. There are often limited functional airfields near the front and they are often overcrowded. They are also often more useful than naval bombers for large sea zones because of their greater range. CAS is useful for holding relatively small air zones where you have good control of the land and the air fields are undamaged. Naval bombers are useful for covering relatively small sea zones from protected air bases, such as in coastal defense. For long range missions tactical bombers are superior and as a war progresses missions tend to increase in range as things get damaged near the front. Damaged infrastructure can also cripple air operations even if the front line air bases are not overcrowded because together with land forces they can exceed local supply demands which greatly reduces air unit effectiveness. Using long range air units can ease the supply situation for both land and air units.

[@fkjl4717]

@@stupidburp why you cant upgrade range for CAS?? Hmm

[@karrackhalcyon8826]

Range is usually a big decider, in air combat. The more range your aircraft have covering the zone the more efficient they are

[@beilno2890]

One thing I think is missing is the difference in aircraft speed. In 36 both heavy and light fighters are at 500km/h, but jump to the next tier and light fighters are at 650km/h compared to heavy's at just 550km/h. Air combat damage gets huge modifiers based on the difference between speed and agility of the opposing forces. So early heavy fighters with no bonuses are very much the equal of early lights of the same. However once you start moving up the tech tree and add design companies (Upgrades would add a ton work for testing optimally) things swing lights favor of crushing heavy's and with some upgrades doing and ok job against bombers to make them better overall, unless maybe dealing with mass Strat bombers. The production difference is fairly minor but might amplify the effect, particularly in the bomber test.

[@timurdemetres5041]

Here is the thing though. Because of superior range of heavy fighters you don't need to invest in it, so your heavies will only get better while upgrading range for regular fighters will result in loss of reliability.

[@eq55]

Lesser reliability affects planes in such a little manner it's negligible.

[@dustinl796]

Fdx has a point, reliability barley makes a diffrence

[@ArariaKAgelessTraveller]

@@dustinl796 unless this is real life XD

[@dustinl796]

Which hoi4 is far from 😂

[@hedgehog3180]

Still though, it still lets you invest more into other things.

[@hobeto13]

Well the thing is, at the start of the game the gap between a Strat's Air Defence and Regular Fighter's Air Attack is not huge compared to late models. That's one difference. But the main thing about Regular Fighters is less production cost, less plane loss, more air superiority. Since with a Regular Fighter you have the chance to further upgrade its agility via upgrades but for Heavy Fighters you would prefer increasing their Air Attack since it's already greater than a regular fighter. So in the end of the day you would use Regular Fighters to gain Air Superiority in normal situation because it would cost less and you would lose less fighter to gain Air Superiority in terms of cost/efficiency. But especially at late game you have no chance other than Heavy Fighter to intercept enemy strats since enemy also would upgrade his strat models and only Heavy Fighters have the capability to further upgrade to intercept strats. Also while doing that you would use Regular Fighters to gain Air Superiority to prevent more loss in the region while intercepting enemy strats or CAS or Naval Bombers or Tactical Bombers. It's not a bad habit to always have some amount of Heavy Fighters and reserve some factories to product them since you can use interception against all sorts of Air Missions that includes some sort of bombing and transporting.

[@zainkhan69420]

Interwar fighter is better

[@dustinl796]

Uhhh no

[@ajshdkebw8590]

Yeah interwar fighter is the most op plane

[@quintijnnagtegaal3543]

@@ajshdkebw8590 No, interwar bombers are better

[@javibermejo1530]

Guys you are all wrong, zeppelins are the meta

[@dustinl796]

No -_-

[@NightsGamingHD01]

keep up the good work my friend

[@dustinl796]

Thx

[@NightsGamingHD01]

@@dustinl796 yw bro

[@sviatoslavs.1305]

Earlier I used to get Fighter III with upgrades as quick as possible. Recently (a few days ago) I decided to use Heavy Fighters with upgrades. It can be a tie but I am not sure...

[@dustinl796]

Hmm interesting

[@flyingdutchman9053]

Sviatoslav S. Go fighter 2s and your good for the rest of the game

[@sviatoslavs.1305]

@@flyingdutchman9053 Sometimes I think the same.

[@echo5327]

So I did a full game as Germany with heavy fighters, just to see for myself what would happen. Turns out Germany has a focus that gives bonus research to heavy fighters, that worked out nicely, so I had 1940 heavy fighters by the time war rolled around. Keep in mind all my findings are skewed because I didn’t aim for fair testing or anything. Also a major point I was playing against a fully boosted France and England. but here’s what I found: 1. The fighters were killing A LOT of enemy fighters and bombers. Like, I was noticing at least 10 fighters dead every day and 4 or 5 CAS. that might have been because of the level difference, but I think that was only part of it. 2. The combat was progressing a lot slower even though this happened. I’ve played allies-boosted games before, and I’ve never struggled cutting through the Benelux, but it was hard getting through Belgium. The game said I had really high CAS damage amount, but it felt like I was trying to wade through an enemy controlled air zone. Of course, this could all be the boosting, but I’m not sure. All in all, it didn’t really affect the victory in France or england, but air combat just didn’t seem right. I think it has to do with something you said in the video, that the heavy fighters did more damage but let more get by them. Keep in mind most of this is my opinion, I didn’t keep any factors constant, just played a normal game. It was fun to see so many dead Spitfires, but I think I’m gonna stick with regular fighters, there’s something that I really can’t grasp that’s better.

[@jag3596]

After reading some of the comments, you should reconsider doing another test. I'm really interested. For the following video, can you try testing different tiers (Fighter 2 against Heavy Fighter 2)? Their stats have of course changed between tiers and I want to see how much those changes affect their performances. Also, maybe list down the cost of 500 fighters against 500 heavy fighters and put it onscreen for everyone to see? I feel that's also pretty important information. And how about seeing what happens when the two nations have both maxed out the same air doctrine tree? If you have more time of course. It might affect long-term gaming strategy. Maybe a certain type of plane does better in the early game but does worse in the late game?

[@dustinl796]

Yeaaaa, im probably going to in a few days

[@jag3596]

@@dustinl796 nice. im excited :)

[@jackozbloke5079]

At the start, heavy fighters winning is probably due to having the range advantage, having a higher % of coverage over a reigon buffs your aircraft. That's why range is the most important of the 4 upgrade a abilities

[@zanzao-1ps318]

Have you tried to check if the difference changes when you reaserch fighter 2/3 and heavy fighters 2/3? Maybe the fighters get some inhanced bonuses in the following models

[@dustinl796]

Apparently the stats do change alot but heavys still keep air attack and def over fighter 2"s so i cant see much of a diffrence

[@patriksvedvall7540]

When I play this, I have always thought the fighters secure the air close to home. And are better in dogfights. While Heavy Fighters Escort and secure air space further away. They can escort strategic bombers better, they should is what i think. I build and use heavy fighter when I'm using strategic bombers. I use either tactical bomber or CAS planes with fighters.

[@trolldatshityeahyou4001]

I use fighters for interception and heavy fighters for air superiority especially over enemy territory

[@sahandursun7227]

I was waiting this

[@dustinl796]

Well hopefully you enjoyed this

[@sahandursun7227]

Obviously i surprised. I was waiting better performance from heavy dudes. Anyway good information ♥️

[@dreamforgegames4776]

The equation for damage dealt during air combat is basically: airwing strength / 100 * ratio of attacker air attack and defender air defense * (1 + a multiplier based on agility and max speed explained below) * (1 + agility disadvantage multiplier) The 'stats multiplier' is a ratio of -0.3 to 0.3 that compares the max speed / 1500 and the agility /100. Heavy fighter vs fighter attack vs defense is a 3.6:1 ratio, but when you take in the malus from agility (-7.5% from stats ratio and somewhere around -50% from agility disadvantage) works out to about 1.53 damage per fight per 100 fighters Flip that with the counter attack and you have 18 attack/13 defense (approx 1.385) and a stats multiplier of +7.5% and no agility malus, and you end up with about 1.49 per 100 fighters. If you expand that to enough combats to down 32 fighter 1s (32/1.53) its about 21 combats, which would see about 31 heavy fighters downed. They are roughly equal in a dogfight due to agility. Now, compare the two against a strat 1, which has 50 air attack, 25 air defense, 400 km/h speed and 5 agility. The attack math works out to be: Fighter 1: 18/25 * (1 + 0.3*(0.0667 + 0.45) = 0.72 * 1.155 = 0.83 damage per 100 fighters per combat H Fighter 1: 32/25 * (1 + 0.3*(0.0667 + 0.2) = 1.28 * 1.08 = 1.38 damage per 100 H fighters per combat Meanwhile, the bomber's counterattacks are: Fighter 1: 50/10 * (1 - 0.155) * agility malus (since the fighter has more than 2.5x the agility, this is -67.5%) = 1.373 damage to fighters per 100 bombers H Fighter: 50/13 * (1 -0.08) * agility malus (even the h fighter has 2.5x the agility) = 1.15 damage to fighters per 100 bombers. So heavy fighters against regular fighters is about a draw in a dogfight, but against strat bombers, they deal about twice the damage and take about 30% less damage. Now, this is, of course, at the cost of higher production and manpower needs. the 1.2 air superiority value and longer range also make them better for supporting bombing in an escort role.

[@lucasfrost2670]

I love these vids

[@dustinl796]

Aww shucks 😁

[@zeroun92]

Heavy Fighters being better at killing fighters is actually not surprising since a heavy fighter was often sent for bomber escort to deal with the fighters that intercept. This is why they had that huge range, so your test makes sense.

[@marczhu7473]

I have read a post on paradox forum about that fighter are good at defending land while heavyfighter are good for escort bomber using air superiority to let some better ground support as air superiority is used for ground forces modifier so heavy fighter is used on offense and fighter on defense due to the inferior cost and range. And for number it's the efficiency/range that say if you need 400 fighter at 50% fight the same level as 200 at 100%. So called prod advantage is then negated. Airplane then for the best efficiency should be in the middle of the air zone for fighter as possible. Heavy one can be on the border range compensating the location.

[@istvan9678]

You can see a difference in mission efficiency and detection, so its somewhat unfair for the fighters

[@gcgrabodan]

I think if you use the equationsn for damage dealt that Reeman's Paradox has figured out, they might show that the higher Air Attack of Heavies gives them the edge in air combat. That would be a modelling mistake by paradox. Although heavies have more range and cost more and so on so there is more that has to be factored in.

[@sanjeewaranawka2072]

Dustin Heavy fighters are all about insurance but it becomes vulnerable to enemy bomber fire light fighters are agile fast and less vulnerable to enemy fire what I do is use heavy fighters to fight for air superiority and light fighters for bomber interception.

[@geographystudios606]

Interesting, thanks. I always build heavy fighters in bad terrain areas like south america because of the range since the air regions are so big.

[@dustinl796]

Hmm good point

[@cespu_iv4519]

Here I am at 3am watching tutorial on HOI4 ...again

[@dustinl796]

well thanks anyhow :)

[@cespu_iv4519]

@@dustinl796 I ain't complaining tho

[@ninjasheep7492]

Heavy fighters reign supreme if you are in large areas like Russia and focusing heavily on air where you can get like 4K fighters over an area but 8k heavy fighters. Europe and countries with limited research and lots of aircraft carriers favour fighters though. Range is not at all to be underestimated especially since upgrading it means forgoing weapon upgrades or having abysmal reliability.

[@cragnamorra]

Others already mentioned, but I think the differences were probably due to fighting over friendly territory (detection and mission efficiency advantages), and the force exchange ratio likely would've been reversed if fighting over the Benelux or Southern England air zones. That said, I too was surprised how well the heavies fared vs light fighters. I perceive that their much farther range is worth the relatively modest production cost increase. I haven't used heavies before; didn't really have anything against them, was just trying to simplify how many simultaneous production lines I had going. Now am motivated to give them a try.

[@dustinl796]

Actually it's 100% the efficiency, me and a bunch of friends after a lot of people started having mixed results tested it in a closed multiplayer game rules just me and them, over every area we finally figured out it was the efficiency due to the range that makes the heavy Fighters better. If they're fighting in the zone where the other aircraft have more efficiency the heavy Fighters get rekt

[@nathantopham2835]

Good comparison but you should have waited until around June-July to conduct this experiment as the bad weather from March-April may have played a part in it somewhat. Other than that good video 👏

[@dustinl796]

Ooooooo ops

[@maddog5458]

So it appears to me that Heavy Fighters have a significant advantage in Air Attack to Fighter 1 Air Defense as opposed to the opposite direction of Fighter 1 against Heavy Fighter. But the caveat is that I don't know how agility factors into the equation or if it already somehow factored into the Air Attack and Air Defense Values. Obviously the Fighter 1 has better Agility. Anyway, just factoring in Air Attack and Air Defense then it would seem that the Heavy Fighter has a significant advantage. But that doesn't seem logical to me. Who knows.... Another excellent video that may have pointed out some realism problem with HOI4. Thanks Dustin.

[@stupidburp]

For air combat speed and unit size are the most important considerations. Agility, air attack, and air defense are all also important of course but the way that the outcome is calculated speed and number of units have the largest impact.

[@maddog5458]

Thanks Stu. That really simplifies it for me. Appreciate the info.

[@johncalabro2982]

Hey Dustini the detail of the Heavy fighters said it is for supporting bombers. So would it not be better for taking out fighters?

[@dustinl796]

Hmm.... good point

[@matthewgladback8905]

Your first test turned out like it did because the heavy fighter side had a huge (relative) advantage in detection -- 20% versus 11%. Since both sides had the same number of fighters in the air, this was either from radar or controlled territory bonuses. Of course the heavy fighters won, they had effective numerical superiority due to the detection advantage. The other thing is that the fighters didn't achieve full coverage efficiency, probably due to range issues, but I think other people here have already commented on this. It would be hard to make a completely balanced air battle in HoI4 without doing something extreme like modding the game to remove some modifiers. For example, if you had done the battle over Belgian airspace, to ensure they were in range, they would have detection advantage from controlled territory at least (if not also radar.) Post-La Resistance, there's also intel advantage to consider. The old encryption-decryption mechanic is easier to control for, by simply ensuring both sides have the same tech, but a lot of things can affect intel levels.

[@101szniper]

I have seen this tested on the forms and heavy fighter 1s are actually better then fighter 1s much to everyone's suprise. I think this is due to their range being so much better then fighter 1s allowing them to have a much higher mission efficiency. The problem is heavy fighter 2/3s are much worse then fighter 2/3. This is because the range on fighter 2/3s range improves a lot from teir 1 to 2 resulting in almost 100% efficiency in most airzones. Also since most of your planes your going to produce will be the teir 2/3 version depending on the rules you stick with fighters. Also the doctrines will probably improve fighters more as well and by the time ww2 starts the UK/Canada and Germany will have completed them. So I would have those done for the test as well.

[@jonathantate3241]

I think the agility of each plane my have been causing some of the times you said the numbers looked off. If you factor that in then some make more sense. Also, idk if the stats are the same ratios once you research more, does one specialize over the other late game?

[@dustinl796]

Hmm, you may be onto something. Ill need to test it out later on to see if fighter 2's hold up to heavy fighter 2's

[@bradleymoore2797]

I want heavy fighters to be connected to a jet pathway like tactical bombers, strat bombers, and fighters. I'm sure there's a modern equivalent to it.

[@theologe6076]

not really. historically heavy fighters were often used for escorts (in which they sucked because they were less maneuverable than the fighters usually going after their targets, exception P38 Lightning for example) Bomber hunting, later night fighting and night bomber hunting (both of which they excelled at), and in certain cases CAS, anti-shipping and, or strike fighter roles (which they performed well). generally those missions also needed long range capabilities. the only analog in more modern times would be waaay ahead of WW 2, because we would be looking at modern strike fighter/multi-role jet aircraft (think F15E or P35 Lightning 2). basically everyone saw that this type of plane isnt worth it in the long run cuz there really wasnt anything the more modern stuff couldnt already handle. thats why we dont see any heavy fighters anymore, only those modern strike/multi-role fighters which can still 'fight' most of the stuff sent after them well enough. i mean, the next best thing after the twin-mustang design taking the role of a heavy fighter (kinda sorta) is the F-4 Phantom II which entered service in 1961 (side note, thats the first one i found at least with a quick search, corrections are desired).

[@Zerpderp0]

6:42 I believe the reasoning behind is this, pound for pound dogfighting, the heavy fight def vs. The fighter's atk is a smaller difference than the reverse. While the bombers are presented with a bigger target against the heavies which are also less maneuverable

[@Zerpderp0]

To put it simply, heavies have the durability to take more hits while Fighters 1 have the speed and maneuverability to dance around the Strat Bombers.

[@dustinl796]

Actually recently I found us neither one of those, turns out if a plane has more range than the other one airzone the one that can't cover the full Air Zone has penalties assigned to it compared to the other one has bonuses, it's funny in multiplayer lately as the US I've been getting heavy fighter to deployment in the Pacific and ignoring aircraft carriers and usually I'll take out 2-4 Japanese zeros for every heavy fighter I lose

[@Zerpderp0]

@@dustinl796 wow.

[@Zerpderp0]

@@dustinl796 did you hear about the Sub escorts being the new meta?

[@valentinotto88]

8.30 yeah but Aluminum you got plenty of anyway, especially as Germany. More than you could ever use cause most of your factories are used for Tanks and Infantry weapons anyway.

[@VYKNIGHT]

You had aa over Alsace. You should try this test over Germany so there wouldn't be that advantage. Also you failed to take account detection, but this is a very useful video never the less

[@dustinl796]

Well something i found out was aa has no effect on fighters, it only engadges planes doing bombing missions, I've tested it out in a few multiplayer games after the video and found out that the air efficiency by having more range is what causes them to have better stats, as the US I've been mostly building in for the Pacific now for Naval protection

[@MadDog64jr]

lack of range on fighter 1 in northern France maybe? do test in Benelux

[@BloodpactORG]

It makes sense. Fighters are good for getting altitude in real life, making them good bomber hunters. But if you're trying to get air support over a battlefield, the fighters UFO'ing at 5km up aren't contributing to anything if the enemy has heavy fighters between them and the battlefield. The fighters will have to come down to the heavy fighters' level, where they have the advantage with their turrets, more spread out crew, and dual engines. Add to that they could have more wing load like rockets and small bombs.

[@dustinl796]

Actually the whole reason they work I found out was just because of the air efficiency rating they get from having full range over a zone

[@alexanderholt4679]

I made a test on fighters vs heavy fighters myself. i chose Belgium and Netherlands as my test nation and gave them both full research and a full upgraded rader in both countries. Belgium had the fighters while Netherlands had the heavy fighters. Before i gave them both all research i gave Belgium the light planes research bonus and i gave Netherlands the medium fighter research bonus to make a more realistic outcome on what the planes would look like after they had started production. When everything was prepared i gave each nation 4k planes of the newest type and put half of them in each airport where i set them to superiority focus in the shared air zone and turned the ai off. When i finally declared the war the heavy fighters got shredded in a 1- 3 ratio which means heavy planes was definitely not worth it in my test

[@dustinl796]

Yea, because like you said you gave max bonuses

[@Joshtow167]

Does anyone else get overwhelmed by the all the notifications once your war starts.

[@PT-rg2vo]

Outside "vanilla" scenarios, HF are far superior to LF as general multi purpose aircraft to the end of the game. Can save a lot of air xp upgrading guns, engine and speed by using the +20% reliability designer, keeping the massive range intact. Also there are focus tree research bonuses (Germany) where you can be mass producing HF III before 1938. In addition they take less slot "space" when attacking Russia, and 200 HF + 200 CAS assigned to each army, are more than enough to give air superiority anywhere in the map the army goes. Also when trying to attack over the Channel, Me-109s die like flies to the AA gun, while they cannot support the Naval Bombers in the North Sea.

[@dustinl796]

Hmm, interesting point. Sounds pretty sweet

[@MrNicoJac]

@3:35 The reasons the heavies are winning this time is because they have 20% vs 11% spotting bonus and 90% vs 75% mission efficiency. What exactly the cause of that is, I'm not sure. Could be troops on the ground. Could also be air doctrines (1st tier is usually unlocked for majors, right?). So please check that and show the ENG and GER tech tiers so we know it's balanced. You can test what caused the spotting and range increases by having the air wings switch places. Do a UK fighter vs GER heavy wing first, then do a UK heavy vs a GER fighter wing from their old airports. That'll give you some comparison. You might have to console cheat your way into a very specific scenario. Like having France and Yugo battle it out over the Alps, so neither has units below, who might give spotting bonuses. Or maybe an airzone that's even smaller. I can't think of one that's both smaller and as easily accessible by two nations right now.... Anyhow, great test and would love to see your response video on what everybody said, and just trying out different nations over different air zones to see if the results remain consistent.

[@dustinl796]

Tbh im not sure, i remvved all the doctrines, theres no radar, and no troops anywhere close to it.

[@piousmuffin5285]

@@dustinl796 Air Detection is affected by controlled territory inside the air zone, radar, weather, nighttime, and number of planes operating in the zone. Mission Efficiency is primarily determined by how much of the air zone is inside your planes' range, and can be affected by weather and doctrines. The difference in Air Detection is hence accounted for by the 10% bonus to Germany for controlling all of Northern France. The difference in Mission Efficiency is because the British fighters can't reach all of the zone while the Heavy Fighters can, giving the latter higher base efficiency, thus making them perform better in combat. On an even playing ground, fighters would obviously beat heavy fighters due to their vastly superior agility. This is even more so the case if you account for later models, designers, variants, and doctrines which will not only further increase the gap in agility but also build a gap in speed, allowing more fighters to engage. There's also the fact that fighters are slightly cheaper to produce, which leads to greater numbers and thus better detection and even more fighters being able to engage. All these factors contribute to them outperforming heavies in almost every situation, and not being much worse in the rest. Even when it comes to the heavy fighter specialty, shooting down strategic bombers, regular fighters are no slouches. They might not hit as hard as heavies, but they'll hit a lot more often (and get hit a lot less) due to the fact that they absolutely eclipse strats on agility. As for range, that mainly matters outside Europe where airfields are scarce and the air zones large, but you can always compensate for that by putting more range on your fighters. Overall I don't think heavies have any major advantages that outweigh the numerous downsides of having to research them, having to spend the extra air experience to upgrade them and moving away from more streamlined production which causes some inefficiency.

[@scipio7994]

Dustinl796 Videos test again and make sure both fighters have equal air efficiency and not in range of radar, full air doctrine and designer.

[@dustinl796]

Ill try but when testing with bhutan and tibet same result

[@scipio7994]

Dustinl796 Videos Do over neutral air zone

[@WhimsicalPete]

Shouldve done it in the Benelux region due to same efficiency and they'd both have 0 AA guns while still having the same range over such a small zone

[@dustinl796]

That is a good point

[@xfactorliverts]

well this comment is 2 years too old but the area you were fighting on had 8 anti air turrets

[@__-yx7ys]

Since when was HOI4 a boxing game?

[@dustinl796]

Always was

[@fulcrum2951]

I wanna see a boxing match between hitler and stalin

[@dustinl796]

Thatd be amaxing

[@cleverstudios4565]

@@fulcrum2951 Hitler would beat up Stalin so badly at first, everyone thinks he is going to win. It turns out Stalin was just saving his energy and comes in with that clutch KO punch and wins. Its historical.

[@Mr_Spock512]

@@cleverstudios4565 But Stalin would purge all his trainers first.

[@hkultala]

You calculate the resource cost wrong. The real resource cost is the resource cost multiplied by the production time. So is's 24 vs 28 oil, 24 vs 28 rubber, 72 vs 56 aluminium. To have a good test, you should be testing 560 fighter ones vs 480 heavy fighters.

[@nikitareshetnyak4791]

Can you please do a china multiplayer/singleplayer guide next? i always stalemate with japan and i lose to them in multiplayer, really like your videos keep it up

[@dustinl796]

Was thinking of china, well see

[@willigutschmidt7137]

Sry for this dumb question , but how do u open the menu at 3:10

[@harz632]

I agree that 500 vs 500 is not fair due to the production cost increast of 4 per heavy fighter, the production numbers should be equal, also no bonuses isn't exactly right either, you should run tests for each possible doctrine combination, 1st vs 1st 1st vs 2nd 1st vs 3rd 2nd vs 1st etc, to rule out hidden bonuses or better bonuses for fighters or heavy fighters 10% increase for fighter and heavy fighters can mean a difference since heavy fighters have higher base stats. So far my opinion is that heavy fighters are helpfull in 2 situations, when your target area is to far away, udssr or china vs japan where normal fighters wouldnt reach or germany vs the US from the Islands like cuba. or if an area has to many enemy planes and all airbases are filled with fighters you can put in more fghter by using heavies from further away, also straining the front line a little less in terms of supply if they are somewhere else. What is the supply difference between 500 heavies and normal fighters?

[@dustinl796]

Got alot of points

[@stefanmore5454]

Jeah figured this out about 3 games ago. Fighter planes are good in high numbers, great surpression. I think it is good programming for air force. Small agile planes can be in more places at any time. Heavy fighters however will have the advantage in direct combat up to 2 times the ammount of normal fighters. Which is logical, agility and speed vs a slower type of fortress fighter. I recon it is the air 1.2 stat. 20% damage bonus in air contact + double the ammount of firepower. It calculates to 2 to 1 win plus 20% = 1000 HF vs 2500 F ? or so...

[@dustinl796]

Hearts of Iron 4 as magical isn't it? LOL

[@stefanmore5454]

@@dustinl796 Nah it is just numbers and a excel sheet. Notice that on mods serious nerving has been done. Funny how a game about war fascism and communisum actually creates "players" that mod the game in their favor. But to the point, been playing games like this for a while. Whenever a form of exponential increase in stats is in play there is always a ultimate strategy. Either you can stack a single stat, or just plain calculate per year of technology which variation of said stack will just outnumber any template. It is not hard, just takes a week of your life and like 150 pieces of A4. Tempting...

[@alexsanderhovland242]

Have planes in netherlands vs planes in belgium to get the best possible answer, no AA and 1 airzone!

[@dustinl796]

Well aa doesnt affect fighters, i just tried it with bhutan and tibet and got litartly the same numbers

[@tdarkfrigategaming7999]

Well I’m not sure that this applies, but heavy fighters can go father distance which means they carry more fuel, meaning they have more air time than the normal fighter making them being able to shoot down your normal fighters when they have to withdraw for a refuel, ... also heavy fighters have a tail gunner while a regular dosent

[@hofnaerrchen]

The 1936 heavy fighters are worth using, they are equally fast, a bit less agile but have a much greater range. This changes 1940 and 1944 there is no use going for heavy fighters anymore at all. And for your testing: Over a large area like Northern France, the size of the area is impacting on how good planes work, as lacking of range will impact mission efficiency. In that case it might be useful even to build additional air fields to increase coverage. Give it a try and test it again above BeNeLux - there all planes should have full coverage. Just put one squadron into Belgium and the other into the Netherlands. In the end: If you are not min-maxing: go with the planes that you like more. They might not do the job perfectly but you might have more fun =)

[@dustinl796]

Fount out apparently the more range the heavy had gave it a large efficiancy boost over the fighter 1

[@Ray-iq7oq]

In road to 56, heavy fighters can also perform cas missions, making them far superior

[@dustinl796]

Ooo, good point

[@gencadam4995]

I tested in multiplayer,my engine 5 range 2 and relaibility 3 fighters shredded range 2 attack 3 reliability 3 heavy fighters. They had air superiority at first,but they kept dying and shot down. I won it quickly

[@MrMichaelBCurtis]

the biggest reason I build heavy fighters is RANGE, they can protect a LOT bigger area with fewer planes

[@MalaysianAviator737-8]

Conclusion: Air superiority- BF110 Bomber interception-BF109

[@dustinl796]

Pretty much LOL

[@fulcrum2951]

So is it still feasible to make primary use of heavy fighters ?

[@JDManring]

You should compare the Tier III aircraft. Those are the ones that are generally rushed and mass produced.

[@dustinl796]

Yea but alot of servers ban 1944 aircraft now, you got a point tho i will try it

[@mychaeldark1007]

I've always wondered. In what way exactly does reliability affect aircraft and ships? Is it worth worrying about your aircraft/ships reliability hitting really low numbers (or 0 even)?

[@dustinl796]

For ships it's just a chance of minor damage occasionally happening, for planes it's usually the percent of a chance that nothing will go wrong during a mission

[@mychaeldark1007]

@@dustinl796 So all this time I have been wasting experience on maxing out my aircrafts reliability?

[@ajx9747]

Strats r usually banned in mp so I usually just make normal fighters

[@dustinl796]

Same

[@thesaltyengineer6086]

Can you do a new test with the MTG dlc added in and do some extra control tests with fuel and weather.

[@dustinl796]

still works the same.

[@DartzinhoV]

All this people talking about how they use their fighters and if one is better than another, while I’m here, just recently figuring out planes are actually worth it in this game...

[@dustinl796]

😂

[@kommandanter1980]

You need to make sure both types have 100% efficiency and detection in the air zone for an accurate test.

[@dustinl796]

Well i just tried tibet vs bhutan and got the same results

[@johnhiponia3322]

Well, now you’ve piqued my interest. Just a thought, though: looking at the comments section, I noticed that AA does not take out fighters and H-fighters if I read it correctly. I wonder if you could do a video on that maybe to clear it up so I’m not over here uselessly building AA in El Alamein as the UK or something.

[@dustinl796]

Yea, kinda suprised me how many people didnt know this. Ima soon do a vid on it

[@johnhiponia3322]

Dustinl796 Videos Ok then, thanks. That’ll clear some stuff up for those of us who don’t really bother to research, heh.

[@juantorres4890]

On the first few test you had the stationary aa over northern France in your favour that's why heavy fighters won against the normal once

[@dustinl796]

Aa only effects bombers like strats, cas, and tacs. They have no effect what do ever on fighters

[@juantorres4890]

@@dustinl796 I am pretty sure that they shoot down fighters as well. To be sure do the test again over the channel

[@dustinl796]

Trust me, they dont. Tried it in a diffrent test regarding aa, no diffeense in losses over uk from lvl 1 to lvl 5 aa

[@maxzmarx9159]

A little late but, I thought their trade off Agility stat and Air Attack stat, Fightet has x2 Agi so they tend to persist longer than HFighter though HFighter has x2 Air Attack so they will shot down low Agility targets like the Bomber. So in a dog fight for Air Superiority I will choose Fighter, and HFighter is meh imo cuz x2 cost.

[@dustinl796]

Actually soon after this video came out we realized it was because of the range. The more in a territory you have versus the enemy gives a huge bonus to help will your Fighters perform. So really if you use a mix of Fighters and heavy Fighters and have enough coverage that's what it turns out does so well

[@gloopsgloops]

There were also weather effects in play that may have skewed results.

[@andrewfrick8818]

Ian G. You can’t really control weather, and it is a random natural statistic, that doesn’t really change too much, I’m pretty sure.

[@dustinl796]

Well it was over 30 days so unless mathew is coming to europe i dont think it made a diffrence 😂, im in sc btw so i can make that joke

[@gloopsgloops]

Andrew Frick you’re right, and I suppose it would be better to know which plane is better in practice, rather than in a vacuum. Thanks for pointing that out.

[@militarian9759]

How do you get those cinematic looks on the map?

[@dustinl796]

Look up how to get cinematic mode in hoi4 on my channel, its very complicated compared to a console command 😂

[@wilsontheknight]

What makes you think it needs fixing? And the heavy fighters not only hit harder but they can take more damage. Sure the fighters are better at dodging but it seems to take a lot less hits to destroy a fighter compared to a heavy fighter. Whenever I play I place a focus on heavy fighters then rush for jet fighters. But heavy fighters have the better range, can take more hits, do more damage and are better at keeping air superiority they are hands down better.

[@dustinl796]

I just feel like being twice as good at dodgeing the fightrrs would be able to hit them hard

[@LostProphet195]

In my experience, heavy fighters great for superiority missions while regular fighters are good for interception. If attacking a region use heavies (primarily) and use regular fighters for home defense. Then again, I play single player mostly. It could just be bad AI.

[@dustinl796]

Well the testing says your right

[@Sphere723]

Which is rather anti-historical given heavy fighters tended to become interceptors or night fighters because they couldn't dogfight. The Bf-110, Me-410, Beaufighter, mosquito, Tigercat etc. Really, only the P-38 could hang with with single engine fighters early in the war, but later it was pushed into non-dog fighting roles because the P-51 was so much better. HOI4 doesn't really capture this.

[@conscript900]

Dont forget to check those naval stats. In completion it sounds to me that using a combination is the best.

[@dustinl796]

After I did this video so long ago that's what I've been experiencing, heavy fighters on air superiority and intercept with regular fighters on either both or just air superiority

[@conscript900]

@@dustinl796 Honestly didnt expect a responce. Been watching some of your other vids and i have to say the information is quite valuable, Will keep watching your vids for sure. Keep up the great work.

[@dustinl796]

Yeah I try to respond everybody, as a viewer and a KZbinr I know what it feels like when you ask a question and don't have that person respond back so I try to answer everybody 😁, also thanks

[@czechmatoupeky1185]

@Dustinl796 videos Hello could you please tell me what'' enemy troops bombed'' refers to. I searched the internet but i still dont know if its hp damage or organization damage or something other. Plz help

[@dustinl796]

Just means in general, they loose equipment, damnage to org.

[@czechmatoupeky1185]

@@dustinl796 so for example '' 2 enemy troops bombed'' means a division lost 1 org and 1 strenght? Thx for reply.

[@dustinl796]

Just means planes bomed that number of divisions

[@czechmatoupeky1185]

@@dustinl796 so its a useless stat since i dont know how much damage i actually delt.

[@texdillinger6173]

The reason why you are getting better results as germany is because you have better air coverage, its further away to send fighters from netherlands to france than from france to france

[@justinwhite4995]

He said he sent them from Belgium?

[@texdillinger6173]

it's still in the lowcountries flight area

[@justinwhite4995]

@@texdillinger6173 Yah but that is a shorter time from the Netherlands. And depending on where the fights happen, it would be almost the same amount of time. Not to mention, the heavy fighters are farther away then the bombers, meaning the bombers would start bombing quicker.

[@kommandanter1980]

Justin White doesn’t matter where you send them from. You need to make sure your range circle covers as much of, if not all of the air zone for maximum efficiency.

[@texdillinger6173]

this exactly, if your airbase is in french air region, you get more coverage. if you fly from lowlands, you only get as much cover as much as your planes can reach

[@dl7096]

Is there a way to make fighters go where the bombers are going and try to intercept them wherever they go instead of me having to spread my fighters out and can never concentrate them all where the bombers are?

[@dustinl796]

Unfortunately not right now. Honestly is probably one of the most annoying things I experience because you have to keep so many planes in reserve and they probably are not even fighting

[@Maximitus96]

So, because there isn't much difference beetwen the 2 on combat stats; Heavy are clearly beetter due to long range (unless you have problems with manpower). Most teathers (America, Africa, Scandinavia, Asia) have long distances with few airports slots, making Heavy great for operating there. That's mainly the reason why i preffer Tactical over CAS/NAV (despite it's versatibility), i have found that range it's the principal problem for air combat outside Europe.

[@dustinl796]

Especially in the Pacific

[@findmymonkey6244]

Heavy fighters were designed to shoot down fighters as there role was essentialy escort (Hence the ong range) where as light fighters where designed as your defence against bombers. Hoi4 seems to have it correct from a historical stand point from your tests.

[@dustinl796]

Huh... I feel as though a lot of people disagree with you though LOL

[@ariman8627]

Completely wrong way to do research. Fighters vs heavies had different efficiency, air doctrine not researched and it makes a lot of difference and also if you speak about amount of superiority you have to place same amount of fighters in production cost, not just number of fighters

[@Zar4thustr4]

The numbers should have been corrected for production costs to make the comparison fair?

[@KaidenOZ]

yeah this is a shit tier test as the base premise is flawed. whlile they both can perform the same role, they are both ment for totally different roles. fighters are for air superiority, beafy fighters are for interception, naval spotting, covering the air sup role when the fighters cant reach. but will lose usually in a one on one. they shine in shooting down heavy bombers where even upgraided fighters will struggle to gain kills, they will be able to disrutp the bomber formations, they usually lack the air attack to kill heavy bombers. the range bonus for heavy fighters get a bonus to efficancy of operations where they can gain 100% coverage of a air zone where normal fighters may not which can lead to you getting a skewed result but that still does not change the fact that fighters will tear up heavy fights if all things are equal.

[@dustinl796]

Just tested bhutan against tibet, same result.

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

In fact a good pilot can get a lot of a heavy fighter, boom and zoom, escaping thanks to higher power, better performance at high altitude, more loiter time.

[@dustinl796]

Good point

[@KaidenOZ]

ok let me rephrase for clarity, heavy fighters cost more so MC-MC cost wise the fighters should win as you can build more fighters faster but your test would be more accurate if you pux X MC amount of fighters vs X MC of heavy fighters. another factor to consider is you have done this test with no doctrines, a lot of the doctrines give bonus to fighters agility while there are few if any bonuses in the doctrines that make heavy fighters more effective. another factor is that design companies in game will often give another agility boost to fighters while only offering a reliability boost to Heavy fighters. All these factors will lead to heavy fighters getting massicared VS an industry equivilent of normal fighters and you are going to give a lot of people thw wrong outcome when they play the game thinking heavy fighters are the shiz then getting promptly destroyed without knowing why.

[@KaidenOZ]

i use heavy fighters in most playthroughs because i like their range and hitting power on he intercept role but they are not better, and infact can be considerably worse then fighters when placed in the Air Sup role vs dedicated fighters.

[@chrisdiso4861]

Strategyfact:fighters are cheaper than heavy fighters, fighters can destroy enemy fighters and bombers but heavy fighter can dealt heavy superiority and ofcourse it depends who is winning superiority

[@Joshtow167]

Also they need a mode where you can try different olanes tanks etc without having to play the whole campaign so to speak.

[@spanishcoinquistador7077]

I tried this before I tried putting 500 heavy fighters vs 1000 fighters . And the result was the heavy fighters were to hold for a while (yellow air) which I was surprised

[@dustinl796]

Yea, tbh im suprised

[@wolfgang4488]

i did a one v one (with that german vs Soviet union mod) and only produced heavy fighters and destroyed the Russian airforce easy. ( I only use heavy fighters and 90% of the time i always win)

[@evolve117]

which is better a lvl 3 heavy fighter or a lvl 3 fighter?

[@frail6582]

heavy fighters are afaik used for ESCORTING bombers due to their high range vs regular fighters who will not be able to escort nearly as far as hvy fighters will. also... your test does not take into account PRODUCTION COST pr unit - Manpower used PR unit. meaning as you pointed out you would likely be able to field a whole lot more regular than hvy due to manpower/production costs