The AI is really bad at designing planes

[mursolini]

Germany designing airplane with self-sealing fuel tanks and then sitting at minus much rubber should be addressed.
It's just removes it's aviation from the game.
If not self sealing fuel tank, what is rubber in plane construction cost even representing?

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

If not self sealing fuel tank, what is rubber in plane construction cost even representing?

Hydraulics? Landing gear?

 

[Lamartine]

If not self sealing fuel tank, what is rubber in plane construction cost even representing?

Here's what Google Gemini reports:

• Seals and gaskets: Rubber seals were used to create airtight compartments in the engine and fuselage, preventing leaks of fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid.
• Vibration dampeners: Rubber bushings and mounts were used to isolate engine and landing gear vibrations from the airframe, improving pilot comfort and instrument accuracy.
• Fuel bladders: Self-sealing rubber bladders were used in some fighter planes to store fuel internally, protecting them from damage during combat.
• Tires: While synthetic rubber tires were increasingly used during the war, natural rubber was still preferred for its superior performance in harsh conditions.

 

[Happy Trigger]

It varies, but in general yes it was a considerable problem for the allies until the P-51 and P-47 with drop tanks and even then they had still had limitations, the Germans are on the defensive or local front patrols for most of the mid to late war so they care more about things like climb rate for interception than doing escort and fighter sweeps at extended range. the entire reason the p-38 is made is to allow long range fighter patrols in the pacific because of range issues too. There are exceptions the zero is a very long range aircraft but that was at the expense of many things other countries would see as vital. I'm general when it comes to combat range you get about 40% of your ferry range since you need a reserve and fuel for on station/fighting time. on station time was particularly problematic for long range patrols in the pacific and Atlantic and why planes like the B-24/Short Sunderland/PBY's were so important as they could reach far out and still stay on patrol in that area for a reasonable time.

To also get something across this is how big the P-47 had to be to get the performance it had and still be as long range. if we look at the to long range US fighters here the P-47 brings 305 U.S. gal internal and 375 U.S. gal external tanks vs's the P-51D bringing 269 U.S. gal internal and 150 U.S. gal External. This leaves ferry ranges ranges of around 1600km for the P-47 and 2600km for the P-51.
View attachment 1098044

I'd like to see more consequences in the choices of design that the player has available. Like weapons impacting the range; and armor and extra fuel tanks reducing the agility. Making the player fell the cons of too much weight. (And killing the so acclaimed meta aircraft).

The P-51 was the fastest propeller fighter of WW2, no doubt. But, it wasn't in any way the most agile. To achieve all the range necessary to escort bombers, all the extra weight in fuel and weapons would end up impacting its agility.

These changes would influence how players make their designs in accordance with their needs; and would easily justify the historical templates.

 

[NiclasCage]

I don't like the "design my own stuff" to be honest. It invites min-maxing, it makes things very hard for the AI, and it is not realistic at all.

For Hearts of Iron V I hope we can get a system where we instead order new designs from one of our companies, and then after a while get a new unit with attributes influenced by the technology available and the abilities of the designing company. Make it somewhat random too, so that we can end up with bad, average or good designs. This happened quite a bit during the war.

National foci, doctrines, leaders and maybe even design company experience could also be set to influence the end result.

Force the AI to order new designs at set intervals, and then modders can add in a slider where we can set a bonus or penalty to our own and/or the different AI nations' designs.

What we have right now just feels like micromanagement for micromanagement's sake. I'm sure there are players that love to play with the system, but it does put the AI at a serious disadvantage and it is unrealistic. A lot of what we do in Hearts of Iron is stuff that could be done/ordered by the nation's leadership. Deciding the exact stats of a ship, tank or aircraft is not.

 

[redline]

Does anyone have info why historically nations didn't put as many HMGs on their planes though? I think I read that the British did so for a while, and it helped for hitting the enemy at all by just throwing as much stuff at them as possible.

Were the ammunition you need to carry to heavy, was there to much wind resistance when mounting so many HMGs, were the HMGs themselves so expensive/needed elsewhere?

Probably ammo capacity... Fewer guns = more ammo capacity per gun

 

[blahmaster6k]

It invites min-maxing

If you think that something "inviting min-maxing" is a bad thing, then I just have to disagree completely here. Strategy games are fun precisely because we can strategize and optimize the game. If they took away the ability to manually design equipment (whether that's through the new designers or the old tick upgrade system) that would be removing strategy and making the game worse. Removing skill expression from a strategy game just punishes good players and makes the game feel dumbed down.

 

[NiclasCage]

If you think that something "inviting min-maxing" is a bad thing, then I just have to disagree completely here. Strategy games are fun precisely because we can strategize and optimize the game. If they took away the ability to manually design equipment (whether that's through the new designers or the old tick upgrade system) that would be removing strategy and making the game worse. Removing skill expression from a strategy game just punishes good players and makes the game feel dumbed down.

If you play multiplayer, I could agree with you.

Not to say that the biggest problem of the game is the concept of the designers. The main issue at the moment is the AI's complete and utter inability to use them. For those of us playing alone, it pretty much breaks the game.

As for dumbed down, Hearts of Iron 4 is already a massive step in that direction compared to Hearts of Iron 2/3. The designers aren't adding layers of strategy in its current state. It just enables easy mode.

 

[Happy Trigger]

Does anyone have info why historically nations didn't put as many HMGs on their planes though? I think I read that the British did so for a while, and it helped for hitting the enemy at all by just throwing as much stuff at them as possible.

I'll share the little I know.

Answering your first question, this is related to how each nation approached MGs in the first place. The Germans, for example, were trying to make the 8mm Mauser the standard, to simplify logistics. So, all their rifles, MGs, and following it the armament of aircrafts, were made in 8mm.

At the same time that the first BF-109s were leaving the factory, the Germans were research ways to fit the 20mm cannon in it. Because they knew that a pair of 8mm MGs wouldn't be enough to shot down enemy aircrafts in a fighter.

The USA approached this, by making two separated MGs. One heavy, intended to be mounted in vehicles (the .50 cal) and a light one to be used by the infantry.

The British started in WW2 using .30 cal in their aircraft, if I'm correct. But later they switched to .50 cal and introduced the 20mm cannons, because it was evident that the .30 cal was too small to inflict damage, fast enough, to shot down an enemy aircraft.

Were the ammunition you need to carry to heavy, was there to much wind resistance when mounting so many HMGs, were the HMGs themselves so expensive/needed elsewhere?

The ammunitions and the HMG were indeed heavy and would impact the aircraft, but in its ability to climb, range and some times their turn too. Because most aircraft's weapons were mounted internally in the fuselage. The only case that it would impact negatively the speed of the aircraft (drag), would be gun pods. One good example would be the gun pods installed in the MC. 202 EC, or the BF-110.

The HMGs weren't expensive, per say (all military equip. is expensive IMO), but many aircrafts weren't designed to fit them in the first place, so in many case you'd find these transitional solutions, until de engineers were able to fit the weapons inside the fuselage.

 

[TheHostName]

Germany designing airplane with self-sealing fuel tanks and then sitting at minus much rubber should be addressed.
It's just removes it's aviation from the game.
If not self sealing fuel tank, what is rubber in plane construction cost even representing?

I would like to say that German AI does not build planes with rubber. They get more weapons in the designs to compensate. I made the change for my own mod so that they do use it. Dont confuse me having encountered this problem in my mod with vanilla.

 

[mursolini]

Here's what Google Gemini reports:

• Seals and gaskets: Rubber seals were used to create airtight compartments in the engine and fuselage, preventing leaks of fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid.
• Vibration dampeners: Rubber bushings and mounts were used to isolate engine and landing gear vibrations from the airframe, improving pilot comfort and instrument accuracy.
• Fuel bladders: Self-sealing rubber bladders were used in some fighter planes to store fuel internally, protecting them from damage during combat.
• Tires: While synthetic rubber tires were increasingly used during the war, natural rubber was still preferred for its superior performance in harsh conditions.

That's hardly the answer. Planes engine consumed steel, nickel alloys, and occasionally some tungsten. We don't see that all in air planes in game.

Tanks, also apparently have to require rubber as well, since most of this applies.

Previous models of planes had rubber to account for self-sealing fuel tanks, not that it's a separate cost module, does it make sense to have base plane consume rubber, if the other 3 metals are ommitted.

I would like to say that German AI does not build planes with rubber. They get more weapons in the designs to compensate. I made the change for my own mod so that they do use it. Dont confuse me having encountered this problem in my mod with vanilla.

I have no idea whom you are, and why you claim responsibility for what happens in my vanilla game.

Specifically German AI builds 1940 fighter with self-sealing fuel tanks and sits at minus 30+ rubber.

 

[TheHostName]

Specifically German AI builds 1940 fighter with self-sealing fuel tanks and sits at minus 30+ rubber.

The code says that there are 2 fighter templates on the 1940 chassi for germany. One of it uses self sealing fuel tanks. The improved version of it (with higher weight) does not. Also Germany doesnt even reasearch this chassi until somewhere in 1941. And yes it sits at that rubber problem because it suddenly uses extra rubber when it gets that chassi in 42. Or the latest with the 44 chassi. So yes not a suprise when the ai after many years suddenly needs twice the rubber then before. It would know to build more if it happend 2 years earlier. Atleast then it has time to fix it, not in 44...

I have no idea whom you are, and why you claim responsibility for what happens in my vanilla game.

The guy that literally 2 pages ago explained how the AI builds its equipment. And no i dont claim responsibility, but iam who complained 2h before you, that AI germany doesnt do the rubber research even when it is at -30 rubber, because of selfsealing fuel tanks. I claimed this to exist before you wrote about it.
My assumption was therefore that you just wanted to repeat/complain about this towards the devs and have them fix this. Since you could not possibly have known that i encountered this in a modified hoi4 version, what else could i expect then you mistaken a claim by me to be about vanilla AI?

 

[Caeric]

Not really, it's at least 60% questionable module design. Why do we have 4xHMG as a single module? Same applies to 4x LMG.
Only 1x20 mm or other single cannon module should be available as well, since those were motor cannons.
Then mostly historical fighters would be close to meta, and variety would mean planes would under or over perform slightly.

Current flying battery meta is absolutely paradox creation, and you should take ownership of that.

Capping Mgs at 2 per slot would also kill a lot of historical designs. Early Hurricanes and Spits had 8x LMG, 4 per wing. A lot of US fighters have 6x HMGs or 8x in the case of the P-47 iirc.

Does anyone have info why historically nations didn't put as many HMGs on their planes though? I think I read that the British did so for a while, and it helped for hitting the enemy at all by just throwing as much stuff at them as possible.

Were the ammunition you need to carry to heavy, was there to much wind resistance when mounting so many HMGs, were the HMGs themselves so expensive/needed elsewhere?

Brittain mainly used LMGs, they didn't replace them with HMGs until middle of the war since they jumped straight to cannons and mostly used the LMGs for range-finding afterwards.

In general I think cannons were just preferred by most nations since they're more likely to destroy targets in a single pass, particularly heavier aircraft with defensive gunners where spending less time being shot back at is preferable.

The US is more of an exception since they didn't have a good reliable cannon until late in the war.

 

[mursolini]

Capping Mgs at 2 per slot would also kill a lot of historical designs. Early Hurricanes and Spits had 8x LMG, 4 per wing.

By "a lot" you pretty much mentioned all.
If that's really necessary, saddle 4LMGs with agility penalty to account for roll rate decrease.

A lot of US fighters have 6x HMGs or 8x in the case of the P-47 iirc.

You have enough slots on better airframes.

In general I think cannons were just preferred by most nations since they're more likely to destroy targets in a single pass, particularly heavier aircraft with defensive gunners where spending less time being shot back at is preferable.

The US is more of an exception since they didn't have a good reliable cannon until late in the war.

Yes, which is why our meta is 12-16HMGs.

 

[Bambilambi]

I have to say I am not really agreeing with the design decision to make the AI produce bad aircrafts, especially not due to history or uniqueness.
"We" have two systems in place now. The designer and MIO:s. These two systems should be able to produce historical aircrafts that are unique for differentt countries. Wasn't that the point with these additions?
And the difficulty can add maluses on agility or whatnot to make the game easier instead of just making "bad" designs.

 

[sterrius]

What can be done is for the AI to still keep its historical designs.

But once they start to fight better aircraft, usually made by the player. They will switch to a non-historical design made to compete with those.
That eventually will make all factions in the game go to more advanced designs.

EX: Germany stick to the BF109.
As soon player britain start to make a fighter that is better in almost everyway to the point the kill/death ratio gets too big. he switches to the non-historical BF109 that can at least compete a little with most meta games. (Making always the best plane possible is not a good game design phylosophy).


This is mostly for the majority of the players that play only single player and will not make optimal designs.
but if someday they improve their designs, read a guide or something they will have a new set of opponents ready for them to keep the game challenging.

 

[Caeric]

By "a lot" you pretty much mentioned all.
If that's really necessary, saddle 4LMGs with agility penalty to account for roll rate decrease.

You have enough slots on better airframes.

Yes, which is why our meta is 12-16HMGs.

Hurricane & Spitfire (8x 7.7mm), Typhoon Mk1a (12x 7.7mm), Beaufighter Mk X(4x20mm 6x7.7mm), MS 410 & D.520 & MB.150 (1x20mm 4x 7.5mm) , Mörkö-Morane (1x12,7mm/1x20mm 2x/4x 7.5mm), Potez 631(2x20mm 6x7.5mm), P-36C (3x 7.62 1x 12.7) P-39 & P-400(1x 37mm 2x 12.7mm 4x 7.62mm), P-66 (2x12.7 4x7.62mm)

Do I need to dig up more examples to satisfy you?

As for solving the meta problem, maybe remove the agility penalty on cannons and rebalance weight and cannons should come out as the best bang for your buck in terms of weight.
Single cannons aka motor-cannons should certainly have no agility penalty.

 

[blahmaster6k]

What can be done is for the AI to still keep its historical designs.

But once they start to fight better aircraft, usually made by the player. They will switch to a non-historical design made to compete with those.
That eventually will make all factions in the game go to more advanced designs.

EX: Germany stick to the BF109.
As soon player britain start to make a fighter that is better in almost everyway to the point the kill/death ratio gets too big. he switches to the non-historical BF109 that can at least compete a little with most meta games. (Making always the best plane possible is not a good game design phylosophy).


This is mostly for the majority of the players that play only single player and will not make optimal designs.
but if someday they improve their designs, read a guide or something they will have a new set of opponents ready for them to keep the game challenging.

I like this idea. Historical designs to start off with but an AI intelligent enough to upgrade to meta designs if the player is building way better planes.

 

[mursolini]

Hurricane & Spitfire (8x 7.7mm), Typhoon Mk1a (12x 7.7mm), Beaufighter Mk X(4x20mm 6x7.7mm), MS 410 & D.520 & MB.150 (1x20mm 4x 7.5mm) , Mörkö-Morane (1x12,7mm/1x20mm 2x/4x 7.5mm), Potez 631(2x20mm 6x7.5mm), P-36C (3x 7.62 1x 12.7) P-39 & P-400(1x 37mm 2x 12.7mm 4x 7.62mm), P-66 (2x12.7 4x7.62mm)

If we remove 2 engine medium airframe planes, designs that can't be done would be hurricane, spitfire, typhoon.
French LFs are doable on 3 slots of 1940 airframe, P-36 can't be done anyway, P-39 can't be done anyway, P-66 is doable anyway with 3 1940 slots.

Do I need to dig up more examples to satisfy you?

Yes, no single engine 12-16 HMG so far, do find at least a few. 3 is enough.

As for solving the meta problem, maybe remove the agility penalty on cannons and rebalance weight and cannons should come out as the best bang for your buck in terms of weight.
Single cannons aka motor-cannons should certainly have no agility penalty.

You still have the problem of too many modules with same characteristics.
4 LMG, 2 HMG and 1 cannon pretty much occupy same fire-weight slot.

It would probably make sense to limit 20 mm to single slot, remove 4 HMG module, and add agility penalty to 4 LMG modules for light airframes, to account for having to mount them further and further in the wing, reducing roll rate.

 

[Xinamon]

I don't know if you have noticed but the ai can't use any new features properly.