HOI4 Guide - Build Fighters with up to 75% less Rubber and a lot less Aluminium

[@JosTheMan1]

Thanks for the guide. Was really struggling to build my airforce in last Italy game, as i had to build refineries even for German needs. This will be handy next time as i can directly lend lease to them instead to keep both of our air forces a float with less rubber

[@hyggegaming]

Nice to see you in the comments Jos and im happy to help, I hope the next game goes smoother :) //TheRealBoppus

[@FireDragon16180]

Very interesting guide, I think this is the only thing I haven't tried yet for aviation, the math is clear, with small countries you can change your game strategy if you use these conversions .. bravo 👍

[@ViktorEnns]

Boppus' hand movements are so powerful the mic had to go far away 😂❤

[@Hoi4withRobin]

Now this is crazy. Definitely a huge game changer. So good that I kinda doubt that this is intended and fear it might be changed soon in some way.

[@zord1352]

Hey. Is this because of my previous comments? 😎

[@hyggegaming]

Absolutley, all comments regarding this on the conversion guide and rubber on the figther guide pushed this up the ladder. But this was in mind from start with the figther and convesion guides, just wanted to build the framework first :) //TheRealBoppus

[@wendydelisse9778]

Upon getting the 1940 era medium airframe tech and the 1940 era airplane engine tech, there are a lot of unanswered questions that warrant for many major powers having at least 1 factory produce a very simple tri-motor prototype design that has 1 set of quadruple machine guns. Those questions are: 1. Ground Attack bomber or Naval Attack bomber or elite Heavy Fighter or ultra long range Heavy Fighter? 2. Air-ground radar? 3. Air-air radar? 4. How many extra fuel tanks, if any? 5. Should there be self-sealing fuel tanks? 6. Should there be armor plate? Most of the cost of the eventually determined future tri-motor design is the 3 engines plus the airframe plus the 1st (and possibly only) set of quadruple heavy machine guns in the prototype tri-motor airplanes. The two 1930s era conversion techs allow filling in an efficient manner the empty spaces in the 1940 era tri-motor prototypes that were produced, in order to fulfill the role that is eventually decided upon for those prototypes.

[@FatheredPuma81]

You really could have explained the purpose of Step 2 much better. Trying to KISS Step 2 is 32% more expensive so you'd be using 9 more rubber (36 more Aluminum) to to keep the same output. The irony is that he didn't do it for normal Fighters because 2% (32% vs 30%) makes it not worth it?

[@ChrisDaRed0709]

He did it for Light Fighters, and explains why he only does it with two steps instead of three. It's halfway through the video.

[@wanbingbai258]

Thanks, great help.

[@acsimark]

Does this work best with concentraded industry? Does this works with tanks? Would love to add cast armor/sloped armor with this. Also dont forget to use strategic material on building base planes for conversion. Would save a ton of aluminium. Recently I found a new topic for you which is amfi tank with aa and barrela added to 4 truck 1 light tank(breaktrough) 2 light spg(max soft) and 1lignt td (max armor + piercing) qualifies as marine and so they can get 5x supply stored from invader ampfi trait. PUSHING deep was never so easy. You can increase this even more with mass assault supply grace and supply reduction(+logistic support) ans spec force marine and airborne supply grace. Nice mechanic. Same works with my snow overrun tamplate, Snow Ranger ampfi AA tank 2 mot arty 2 mot towedrocket 4 cavalary, winter specialist and montainer maxed. They go 6.4 but as enemy moves with 1 kmh you can imagine.

[@TheMelnTeam]

- Concentrated vs dispersed industry isn't relevant to whether you decide to use this. - It works with tanks, but remember some modules are more expensive to convert or replace than others. Similar to non-strategic materials in planes, swapping to cast armor adds significant extra cost to the point of not being worth. More likely you'd try to economize tungsten/chromium or (in edge cases) steel usage, if those are problems. If you're playing South America without DLC, you really might have a steel shortage, though you also won't have many factories to create a huge shortage. Still, making lots of tanks for 1 steel and then converting them could be worth maybe.

[@acsimark]

@@TheMelnTeam according to wiki, the conversion speed bonus is more efficent on a higher output % this way concentrated is better if you have a good growth and all the materials. Dispered can be also good if you dont have the materials and a higher base provide better gain if you choose new models. Hygge should test :D I will start and make medium heavy fighter without aluminum and rubber :D Lets see how it will go

[@floridaman4073]

I was asking if it was worthwhile to build the frames early on and convert in a previous video. You mentioned you didn’t think so but alas you found a way.

[@hyggegaming]

Oh, then I probably messed up, sorry for that and you where totally right :) //TheRealBoppus

[@floridaman4073]

@@hyggegaming definitely wasn’t trying to be right, but bringing it up for further thought. Glad it turned out to be accurate.

[@Fusseliko]

Great stuff, I can definitely see that the final step is worth it, saving 84 rubber is definitely worth the 1 military factory used for conversion. Just for the heavies, doing some quick maths, it seems that by adding step 2, you're effectively using 9 military factories to buy 36 aluminium and 12 rubber. In terms of construction, a civ is worth around 1.5 mils. It'd cost 7 civs to buy those resources from a third party, which would be equivalent to 10.5 military factories, so at 37 total factories the tradeoff seems to be worth it. Have you tested whether the terms of this trade change depending on how many factories you use to produce fighters, and if so, does the trade get better the more factories you use or is there a cutoff factory count at which point forgoing step 2 and instead switching to a one-step conversion line becomes more economical?

[@FatheredPuma81]

The vast majority of time Aluminum cost can be ignored but I can only imagine how insane this would be for countries like Japan or Romania.

[@maksimkuskov1400]

Intresting idea. Thanks. I only dont understand one thing. Why are you using 3 template of plane? I think 2 template of plane is enough. First template must be the most cheap (cheap first engine, non strategic materials, 1 cheap machinegun) and the second template of plane must be with best modules (module with rubber, best engine, best guns). You just convert from cheap template to best templane of plane? Am i right?

[@hyggegaming]

You pay resources for the amount of Mils on the line, with 2 lines you need to pay a lot more rubber since you need to pay it for both lines instead of just 2 rubber in the last line //TheRealBoppus

[@nox5555]

there is an error in the description. It says aluminum

[@hyggegaming]

Many thanks, i had two possible spellings to fall back to but failes anyways. Its corrected now :) //TheRealBoppus

[@nox5555]

@@hyggegaming the 2 Possible spellings are a myth. IUPAC is very clear in all their material.

[@wojciechgroblicki3922]

Genius but in the same time seems too cheese for me to use

[@Spielkind104]

Meta=exploids

[@TheMelnTeam]

"Using mechanics exactly as designed is an exploit", apparently.

[@Spielkind104]

@@TheMelnTeam coversion is ment to Improve existing airframes or chassis by adding newly researched models and not to have a billion production lines to save resources

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@Spielkind104 Conversion is meant to do what the game and official wiki tells you: change one design to another, at a defined cost premium. Pdox is well aware of it. You will find elsewhere in these comments that he tried to make non-strategic materials work, but changing it out costs too much even with the tech. Same is true for changing some tank modules and ship modules. Calling something that works *exactly as described/defined* an exploit because you didn't think of it/don't like it is nonsense. You can argue whether it's properly balanced. Calling it an exploit implies you don't have a coherent working definition of what that word means.

[@Spielkind104]

@@TheMelnTeam only because there aware of it dosent mean that they need to patch it. No one is forced to use exploids, in singleplayer no one cares how much you're cheating and in mp you can instantly tell when someone does it anyways.

[@TheMelnTeam]

@@Spielkind104 I mean they're aware if it in that they clearly & deliberately made some things worth converting and not others. Making ~11% fewer vehicles to expend fewer resources might be an imbalanced tradeoff in your mind, but calling it an exploit while the player is using the mechanic exactly as it says on the tin and getting exactly the purported output values is a head scratcher.

[@mikemandalorian9226]

This feels like cheating and using bugs...

[@hyggegaming]

Yeah, its absolutely in some kind of exploit greyzone, but I wouldn’t say its straight up cheating. There are probably a lot of ways to roleplay this to being just an effective management if your industrial complex:) //TheRealBoppus

[@Fusseliko]

We'll see if Paradox considers it as such and fixes it. Maybe they'll just nerf it by reducing the amount of rubber saved but not remove it completely. I do kind of like it, it adds a layer of strategy to production lines where there previously wasn't one. If you want an in-universe explanation, maybe conceptualize it as a boost in the efficient use of resources as a result of proper vertical integration.

[@mikemandalorian9226]

@@Fusseliko it's dumb tho, you still should pay the same price in resources

[@SSkinner901]

I wouldn't say it's cheating, it's just taking advantage of HOI4 economy where some PTSD from prior versions made Paradox get rid of resources as assets, and put them in as rates. This exploit wouldn't exist if one plane required 10 units of rubber, as opposed to 2 rubber per day. The way HOI4 economy works, resources are essentially fuel for factories rather than stuff weapons are made of, and that opens the door to all kinds of exploits. Another one is building planes from non-strategic materials, and then upgrading them to not use non-strategic materials.

[@TheMelnTeam]

You are paying a cost premium to use fewer resources. You might think the cost increase is insufficient, but that's a matter of balance opinion. Doing this is strictly worse than free market trade-backs commonly used in MP games, unless you can't produce or trade for enough of the resource. AKA, it's situational, because it requires multiple extra techs and a non-ideal situation to become the best option. It is 100% consistent with how the mechanics work as written. If a host were to ban someone for using this in MP using a broad "no exploit" rule without first writing a rule about it specifically, that host is a cheater and should himself be banned.