In competitive play, using rocket fighters for offensives is rare to see and almost always fails.

When you're defending they're great, but the only reason someone's defending is they want to resist, counterattack and win. It wouldn't be wise to rely on rocket fighters only and assume it will work.

you also need secret labs (and high level ones) which means you have to start building them quite a while before rocket fighter becomes available, holding your production and economy back. The cost of flying bomb, rocket fighter lv1 and lv2 is 2,850 goods, 6,200 oil, 8,800 rare materials and 17,850 money.īefore celebrating how cost-effective that is. You may need a couple more air factories but also keep in mind the short range of RF means you need way more airstrips for proper air transfer. The cost of the aircraft factories isn't factored in as you already built them for bombers and air transfer anyway. The cost of Interceptor lv4, lv5 and lv6 is 6,350 goods, 6,350 oil, 9,450 rare materials and 29,150 money. This means that the research costs of lv1-lv3 Interceptors should not be factored in, as we're talking of 'whether or not to switch into rocket fighters'.

You aren't factoring in that Interceptors research and production are necessary for your airforce early before rocket fighters become available. Please note I'm talking of real 'competitive play' between pro players, not just normal maps where every 'joke strategy' like flying bombs or heavy tanks can work. Let me copy my reply to Rocket fighters unrealistic to explain why Ints seem far better to me:Īs Axis they (rocket fighters) are a good option, questionable as Allies or Comintern and suck in every possible way as Pan-Asian.

Call of war 1942 rocket