An aviation mapmode would be awesome. So I can check out my coverage in a dynamic fashion. It would be pretty AWESOME.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Air Combat
Good work in progress..
I think that for the Air combat, developers could use a system similar to that they use for naval warfare. I explain better:
- Elimination of squadrons brigades (maybe they already will do that).
- Making the composition of a Squadrons group relevant: for example a group formed by TAC e FIG squadrons will suffer penalties if encounter a group formed by only FIG.
- Introducing the positioning mechanics: this is to simulate the different formations, altitude and speed FIG used in WWII (Battle of England for example) to try to engage the enemy in the better way they can. Maybe the "engage tactic" could be developed by different air doctrine technology trees (such as different naval doctrine trees). (Another example is that the Japanese "Zero" was the best FIG in the Pacific theatre in 1941, better in armament and manoeuvrability than its direct competing US FIGs, but after the initial great success it lost its advantages because of a superior use of air tactics adopted by US FIGs. However used by experienced pilots, the "Zero", was still a mortal weapon ---> this introduce the next step)
- Increasing the importance of detection and pilots (squadrons) experience
That's it.
Good work in progress..
I think that for the Air combat, developers could use a system similar to that they use for naval warfare. I explain better:
- Elimination of squadrons brigades (maybe they already will do that).
- Making the composition of a Squadrons group relevant: for example a group formed by TAC e FIG squadrons will suffer penalties if encounter a group formed by only FIG.
- Introducing the positioning mechanics: this is to simulate the different formations, altitude and speed FIG used in WWII (Battle of England for example) to try to engage the enemy in the better way they can. Maybe the "engage tactic" could be developed by different air doctrine technology trees (such as different naval doctrine trees). (Another example is that the Japanese "Zero" was the best FIG in the Pacific theatre in 1941, better in armament and manoeuvrability than its direct competing US FIGs, but after the initial great success it lost its advantages because of a superior use of air tactics adopted by US FIGs. However used by experienced pilots, the "Zero", was still a mortal weapon ---> this introduce the next step)
- Increasing the importance of detection and pilots (squadrons) experience
That's it.
Coming late to the party...sorry lads.
There is one thing that continually frustrates me when it comes to the air war. When I select "night" missions for my night flyer commaders, they always seem to end up fighting during the day, and at hugh disadvantage. Same is true vice versa. So it appears that selecting day or night missions is meaningless.
Is this going to change in HoI3? Please tell me it will. Cheers.
There is one thing that continually frustrates me when it comes to the air war. When I select "night" missions for my night flyer commaders, they always seem to end up fighting during the day, and at hugh disadvantage. Same is true vice versa. So it appears that selecting day or night missions is meaningless.
Is this going to change in HoI3? Please tell me it will. Cheers.
Also, in the US they use a 400-degree system while the rest of the world uses a 360-degree circle. Radians are foreign for everyone
that is wrong. Where did you get that info?
I generally agree (although your impressions of the Zero are over-rated by far; the Zero when employed to its maximum was a inferior fighter then the P-40 employed to its maximum, simply because Zero was a turnfighter - while the P-40 was a BnZ plane. However, BnZ as a tactic requires greater training, discipline and coordination while turnfighting is more 'easy' to grasp, despite yielding superior results as evidenced by the best of german fighter aces, the successes of AVG in China vs the Japanese, etc.).
Doctrinal research and training should definitely improve the performance of aircraft more and in different ways then the 3%-5% morale+org per doctrine. The difference between efficency of, eg. AVG in China (which used very advanced tactics at the time and achieved >20:1 kill ratio vs the Zeros) compared to other units equipped with the same P-40 is staggering, and not really well represented in the game.