One of these is not like the others...

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Land Battalions: Deals direct damage to org and HP
Combat Support Companies: Deals direct damage to org and HP

Weapons techs: Grant a buff to friendly stats
Non-combat Support companies: Grants a buff to friendly stats
Land Doctrine: Grants a buff to friendly stats

Railway guns: Grants a debuff to enemy stats
Shore Bombardment: Grants a debuff to enemy stats
Forts: Grants a debuff to enemy stats


Planes on Ground attack missions: Grants a buff to friendly stats, AND deals direct damage to org and HP, AND grants a debuff to enemy stats.

Is CAS just "overpowered" because it's essentially triple counted?

 

[Hemothep]

This is a really simplefied way to look at it, because there is no reason CAS should be one modifier only.
Also you just add up everything that comes with green air + CAS. Winning the air war decided the war on land and at sea IRL, it should be good.
If it's overpowered is really a question of costs, benefits and viability. You could give every infantry division 50+ air attack, but that would make them expensive in production and supply, while also hurting terrain modifiers, HP and Org.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Is CAS just "overpowered" because it's essentially triple counted?

Whether something is OP/imba or not depends on more than just what it does, it also counts for how difficult/expensive it is to pull that off. CAS is also pretty vulnerable to enemy fighters, so you can't just throw up pure CAS without escorts, they'll get shot down in droves. The CAS also won't directly damage the enemy without friendly units being present, and the value of having the friendly stats being multiplied depends on how good those stats are to then multiply. So, the cost of CAS is generally way higher than just the planes themselves, it's also its fighter escorts and the land formations they're supporting.

Testing done by @Cloak71 suggests that CAS may be bugged. It seems to be letting more planes into combats than should be allowed.

 

[Cloak71]

It seems to be letting more planes into combats than should be allowed.

It doesn't seem to be letting more planes into combat than allowed, it is. If there is additional cas width available in a battle then cas can always reinforce even if the size of their air wing would put them over the width limit (3x enemy combat width used). So a 1k stack of cas can all participate in a battle even if the allowed amount is only 270 (plains x3).

There are some people who suggest that these air wings can actually reinforce in multiple battles at the same time. So if there are 3 battles with 270 space available for cas, the 1000 cas air wing will partake in all 3 battles at the same time. Effectively tripling the amount of cas you are using.

 

[Secret Master]

It doesn't seem to be letting more planes into combat than allowed, it is. If there is additional cas width available in a battle then cas can always reinforce even if the size of their air wing would put them over the width limit (3x enemy combat width used). So a 1k stack of cas can all participate in a battle even if the allowed amount is only 270 (plains x3).

There are some people who suggest that these air wings can actually reinforce in multiple battles at the same time. So if there are 3 battles with 270 space available for cas, the 1000 cas air wing will partake in all 3 battles at the same time. Effectively tripling the amount of cas you are using.

Can you point me to a bug report?

 

[Cloak71]

Can you point me to a bug report?

HoI 4 - More cas are participating in battles than what is allowed v.1.11.10.29f3 [09ac]

Description of issue Cas limit in battle not working properly v.1.11.10.29f3 [09ac] Game Version v.1.11.10.29f3 [09ac] Enabled DLC Together for Victory, Death or Dishonor, Waking the Tiger, Man The Guns, La Resistance, Battle for the...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Didn't include any testing for the part about them joining multiple battles but they were definitely doing 3 times the damage of air wings following the rules.

I did a whole youtube video on it if you would like to see the test.

 

[Secret Master]

I did a whole youtube video on it if you would like to see the test.

That would actually be helpful.

(I am working on a secret project right now related to measuring ground attack effectiveness, so your data might help me understand some stuff.)

 

[Cloak71]

There isn't much in the way of data. But it does demonstrate how the bug works. It is a different scenario from the bug report though.

 

[Ilyasviel]

Whether something is OP/imba or not depends on more than just what it does, it also counts for how difficult/expensive it is to pull that off. CAS is also pretty vulnerable to enemy fighters, so you can't just throw up pure CAS without escorts, they'll get shot down in droves. The CAS also won't directly damage the enemy without friendly units being present, and the value of having the friendly stats being multiplied depends on how good those stats are to then multiply. So, the cost of CAS is generally way higher than just the planes themselves, it's also its fighter escorts and the land formations they're supporting.

Testing done by @Cloak71 suggests that CAS may be bugged. It seems to be letting more planes into combats than should be allowed.

You can absolutely send CAS against enemy fighters without an escort, I've done it many times, with success. They actually trade fairly well against fighters. Not enough to grab air superiority on their own, of course, but they can survive long enough to win a war. If you had two countries of equal industry, and one made only fighters while the other one made only CAS, the one making CAS would win every time because of the endurance of CAS and the massive damage they do to ground troops. This is what makes CAS OP; they should be, as their name implies, support, but they can really basically win wars on their own.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Whether something is OP/imba or not depends on more than just what it does, it also counts for how difficult/expensive it is to pull that off. CAS is also pretty vulnerable to enemy fighters, so you can't just throw up pure CAS without escorts, they'll get shot down in droves. The CAS also won't directly damage the enemy without friendly units being present, and the value of having the friendly stats being multiplied depends on how good those stats are to then multiply. So, the cost of CAS is generally way higher than just the planes themselves, it's also its fighter escorts and the land formations they're supporting.

Testing done by @Cloak71 suggests that CAS may be bugged. It seems to be letting more planes into combats than should be allowed.

I'm not sure CAS's vulnerability to fighters as necessarily a reason for it being so powerful, since two nations throwing fighters at each other becomes a wash, IC wise. If both sides put 20 mills on fighters say, CAS will still do its thing while the fighters blow each other up. If anything the addition of CAS in the airzone will help your fighters!

My real question is why the simulation decides that troops being pelted with say, railway gun artillery results in them taking no direct org/hp damage while being bombed by cas does. Or why line artillery firing on a division doesn't lower their defence or speed but being bombed by cas does. Or why the presence of friendly shore bombardment in a battle doesn't buff breakthrough but cas (or more specifically air superiority) does.

Every other form of attack is abstracted as one impactful effect. CAS has 3. Doesn't it just seem like it's the odd one out? Especially since every single one of it's effects (direct damage, debuffs, buffs) is comparable in effect and power level to the others?

 

[Corpse Fool]

Every other form of attack is abstracted as one impactful effect. CAS has 3.

I'd take the larger angle on this whole discussion that in all instances, what is changing is the ratio of power between yourself and the enemy. Whether it does that by buffing your troops, damaging the enemy, or penalizing the enemy, the result is that you get comparatively stronger. Stat buffs/debuffs themselves also generally just feed into the damage going back and forth, so there's really only a single (or two) mechanic actually at play, that several other systems feed into at different levels. I don't think it particularly matters how far away from the final result certain systems come into play, or that one choice can feed into the trades at multiple different points, I think that what matters more is the result.

Perhaps CAS are over-tuned. If what Ilyasviel says is true about unescorted CAS holding their own against fighters, they probably are. But I don't think that them having 3 different routes to the result is what specifically makes them OP, any of those routes could be adjusted to have less impact. Their impact on air superiority is generally going to be pretty small, so we can really only count 2 of the methods as having much impact. Getting the +25% stats is actually pretty big and nice, provided you have a strong enough base of stats for that to matter and you aren't figthing in terrain that's going to cut that bonus (forest, hills, mountains, urban). The true damage can be really helpful in bypassing the armour/hardness/defenses of enemy tank/mek, but against high-org, high-HP infantry mixed with some cheap AA, you can actually end up losing that trade.

A lot of the things PDX have done with the game have an example of 'an odd one out', which makes CAS being odd compared to the others par for the course rather than an anomaly. Perhaps PDX shouldn't do things like that, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Sarmatian]

Air force in general sort of "breaks" the game. You are pretty much allowed to use any number of them. They work in early game to a degree, when IC is precious, and therefore the number of airfields and planes is low, and their range is relatively short. But after 1943, you can stack tens of thousands of them in air zone.

Usually the war is won by 1943 or so anyway, so there's not much incentive to change that, but it is a major flaw, I'd argue, especially if taking alternate history the game allows into account, or additional wars that may break out after the WW2.

 

[twillie96]

Land Battalions: Deals direct damage to org and HP
Combat Support Companies: Deals direct damage to org and HP

Weapons techs: Grant a buff to friendly stats
Non-combat Support companies: Grants a buff to friendly stats
Land Doctrine: Grants a buff to friendly stats

Railway guns: Grants a debuff to enemy stats
Shore Bombardment: Grants a debuff to enemy stats
Forts: Grants a debuff to enemy stats


Planes on Ground attack missions: Grants a buff to friendly stats, AND deals direct damage to org and HP, AND grants a debuff to enemy stats.

Is CAS just "overpowered" because it's essentially triple counted?

That they have 3 different modifiers doesn't necessary mean those are strong. This way of arguing can easily give a distorted view

 

[Secret Master]

Air force in general sort of "breaks" the game.

I mean, you're not wrong. But I see that as a problem with the war HOI4 is trying to emulate (not simulate).

Tell me that controlling the skies wasn't one of the most important factors in all theaters of the war. The issue might be whether the game gets the reasons and implementation correct.

Personally, as long as planes aren't being over-counted for ground attack, I don't have a problem with modifiers. Each of the modifiers does something different, can be tweaked in different ways, and contributes differently depending on circumstances.

 

[Sarmatian]

I mean, you're not wrong. But I see that as a problem with the war HOI4 is trying to emulate (not simulate).

Tell me that controlling the skies wasn't one of the most important factors in all theaters of the war. The issue might be whether the game gets the reasons and implementation correct.

Personally, as long as planes aren't being over-counted for ground attack, I don't have a problem with modifiers. Each of the modifiers does something different, can be tweaked in different ways, and contributes differently depending on circumstances.

Well, here we get into nuances. Sure, control of the skies was a very important factor. It's impossible to disagree with that statement on its own. The problem is when we start comparing it to other very important factors, and try to quantify them so they can work together in a simulation like this one.

But, I'm not really interested in comparing such factors. I'm more interested into finding a way to limit number of planes in mid to late game organically.

Solutions that come to mind is maybe much higher attrition losses to represent wear and tear of the planes during missions or maybe more efficient AA guns... Right now, as soon as you gain air superiority against AI, it puts AI into a death spiral.

 

[GrandVezir]

Right now, as soon as you gain air superiority against AI, it puts AI into a death spiral.

There are more than a few ways to death-spiral the AI, several of which can be done without building any aircraft at all.

 

[Secret Master]

Right now, as soon as you gain air superiority against AI, it puts AI into a death spiral.

It sounds like what you really object to is how air dominance becomes a compounding factor of defeat from which the AI can't really recover even if it had the brains to do it.

But, I'm not really interested in comparing such factors. I'm more interested into finding a way to limit number of planes in mid to late game organically.

I can think of two immediately obvious ways to do this, but the AI would probably do even worse if the changes I envision are implemented.

1) Accident losses can be increased by a huge margin to represent maintenance issues. As it stands now, even the base 80% reliability isn't a big deal in terms of accident losses. And I can show you competitive matches where fighters with 40% reliability are the norm because you can boost your kills by a larger number than you lose in terms of losses.

2) Increase fuel usage of planes. Then you can have as many planes as you want, but good luck fueling them if you aren't the US.

 

[Sarmatian]

It sounds like what you really object to is how air dominance becomes a compounding factor of defeat from which the AI can't really recover even if it had the brains to do it.




I can think of two immediately obvious ways to do this, but the AI would probably do even worse if the changes I envision are implemented.

1) Accident losses can be increased by a huge margin to represent maintenance issues. As it stands now, even the base 80% reliability isn't a big deal in terms of accident losses. And I can show you competitive matches where fighters with 40% reliability are the norm because you can boost your kills by a larger number than you lose in terms of losses.

2) Increase fuel usage of planes. Then you can have as many planes as you want, but good luck fueling them if you aren't the US.

That's a possibility... Potentially AA guns boost as well.

If division AA would target fighters on air superiority and scout planes, that would help. Maybe provincial AA could work more like railway guns, If planes took some losses from AA and enemy planes in air zones they are traveling through...

 

[xtfoster]

If division AA would target fighters on air superiority and scout planes, that would help. Maybe provincial AA could work more like railway guns, If planes took some losses from AA and enemy planes in air zones they are traveling through...

Most Divisional AA was not suitable for Area Defense. It might attack the occasional fighter performing Air Superiority, but only if it was actually engaging the division, its supply train, or friendly aircraft supporting its attack (which would probably lead to 'friendly' fire). It certainly wouldn't be capable of attacking High Altitude aircraft transiting the area.

 

[Sarmatian]

Most Divisional AA was not suitable for Area Defense. It might attack the occasional fighter performing Air Superiority, but only if it was actually engaging the division, its supply train, or friendly aircraft supporting its attack (which would probably lead to 'friendly' fire). It certainly wouldn't be capable of attacking High Altitude aircraft transiting the area.

I'm just thinking of ideas, I'm not trying to say it is the best solution.

That being said, airplane numbers after 1943 are too high, and are keep getting even higher with passage of time. That is a much bigger realism problem than AA guns being more effective than they should. So, that doesn't make sense to me logically. Let's not fix a major issue on game play that is not realistic at all, because the solution isn't realistic.

Also, I did say divisional AA doing damage to fighters and provincial AA doing damage to high altitude aircraft transiting.

It doesn't have to be major. I mean, the number of planes should go down on the whole, but there doesn't have to be a single solution. We could go for several solutions, like slightly increasing production costs, slightly increasing accidents, slightly decreasing reliability, slightly increasing AA damage, slightly increasing production costs for new airfields etc...

If I recall correctly, factory guarantee for planes in the WW2 was around 100-200 working hours. In game planes work for thousands of hours.