Are Stealth Aircraft Worth The Resources

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • An interesting question, whose answer is "yes and no" at the same time. I know it's annoying, i sound like the usual old fart that can't give a straight answer, but here is the elaborated thinking behind :

      Stealth Aircraft are unarguably good in front value, with very high tactical value, but rushing them is pointless in front of what you could achieve with "normal" units. By the time you are "established" enough to develop them without hindering your main efforts, you find likely yourself in the position of the top dog, with nobody able to contest you. You can do stealth, but you will win without it anyway.

      It then comes down to stealth as a demonstration of "i'm the lord, you shall despair under my might".

      It's REALLY rare to be in such a good public game that you have, around day 40, two or three big coalitions all with a high industrial and tech potential. But if it happens, stealth becomes more worth it (exactly like the nuclear program).


      TLDR : Not worth it from grand strategy point of view, except if you reach late game in front of people that are as active/skilled as you are.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    • Opulon wrote:

      An interesting question, whose answer is "yes and no" at the same time. I know it's annoying, i sound like the usual old fart that can't give a straight answer, but here is the elaborated thinking behind :

      Stealth Aircraft are unarguably good in front value, with very high tactical value, but rushing them is pointless in front of what you could achieve with "normal" units. By the time you are "established" enough to develop them without hindering your main efforts, you find likely yourself in the position of the top dog, with nobody able to contest you. You can do stealth, but you will win without it anyway.

      It then comes down to stealth as a demonstration of "i'm the lord, you shall despair under my might".

      It's REALLY rare to be in such a good public game that you have, around day 40, two or three big coalitions all with a high industrial and tech potential. But if it happens, stealth becomes more worth it (exactly like the nuclear program).


      TLDR : Not worth it from grand strategy point of view, except if you reach late game in front of people that are as active/skilled as you are.
      Eh
      I‘d say not worth it in general because mechanics still work the „normal way“
      eg: attacking a unit inside aa range triggers the aa; attacking a stack that has asf patrolling above (even if you use direct and not patrol attack) will trigger the asf.

      Also they still will take defensive damage when attacking anything which makes imo the ssf in particular not that great

      And a stack needs to be purely stealth aircraft to be invisible which lowers survivability.

      They would need to have some sort of „first strike“ ability to be of more use.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • the great duck wrote:

      Would stealth bombers be better?
      Yesnt.

      On one hand their stealth capabilities significantly increase survivability if you use them to directly attack infrastructure.

      On the other hand the best way to use bombers is still to launch missiles from them; targeting infrastructure is also fairly predictable (not to mention most of the time simply not worth investing into stealth bombers, I mean are you really gonna build them just to bully that poor lvl 2 army base?)
      I am The Baseline for opinions