I guess you dont provide any evidence for your claims unless "read it somewhere".
- 2
Air Combat Wish List for next DLC
- Thread starter wagnerleung0079
- Start date
-
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.
I guess you dont provide any evidence for your claims unless "read it somewhere".
Umm, how would that be better than you doing it yourself? Wouldn't that be worse in almost every way than the current system?
For example:
I create a division that has engineers. It needs support equipment. Then the AI in charge of production starts a new production line for support equipment. How many factories does it assign? Well, that would depend on things that AI is physically incapable of doing, like reading your mind about the divisions you intend to create during the next five years. And how much attrition they will suffer during training. And expected losses during battles. And gains from captured equipment. And so on...
Of course, that's the easy one. Support equipment never goes stale. Let's take AT guns.
So, I create a division that uses AT guns. How many factories does the AI assign now? Does it even take into consideration that I'm still at Tier 1 tech? Does it know that I will have Tier 2 researched in 25 days or 250 days? Does the AI know if I am creating special AT gun divisions with multiple line battalions of AT versus just spreading out AT guns to every single division with a single support company? Does the AI understand that I want two separate production lines, one with Tier 1 and one with Tier 2 so that I can keep production efficiency up? Seems stupid, but if I know the enemy tanks are weak and I can get away with more numerous Tier 1 AT guns mixed in with the Tier 2 until the Tier 2 line is up to full speed. Hell, can the AI read my mind and understand that I intend to create 100 divisions in the next two years that use AT, and I've already researched Tier 2, so I might as well produce a lot now so I can fill out the divisions? Does the AI understand it is even possible to template swap, and I might have a large number of Category III divisions with just pure INF that I am waiting to template swap to a template with ART, support equipment, and AT the moment the Category III divisions are done exercising?
What about ships?
I don't know about anyone else, but capital ship production takes so long that any fleet composition I come up with in 1938 will be obsolete by 1940 when the capital ships are finished anyway. So, instead of creating a fleet template and telling the AI to fill it out, it makes more sense to just build the ships and put them in a fleet as best you can when they are finished. Furthermore, do you really think the AI is capable of reading your mind about your priorities for ships, NIC, and resources? And if you have to go in to the naval construction queue and fiddle with NIC allocation and resources, then why bother having the AI do it in the first place?
It's worth noting here that I'm not disparaging the AI in HOI4. What I'm pointing out is that unless Paradox has secretly created pre-cognitive computers from Stellaris (which raises the question of what drugs they have been taking at the office to get the tech from the Shroud as a pre-FTL civilization in the first damn place), what you want the AI to do is impossible for it to do effectively because current video game AI programming can't see the future or read our minds. And planning ahead is a big deal in HOI4.
- 1
Chill out man, this is just an assistant to ease the pain of doing trivial micromanagement, it is not designed to replace the player. If the player wants to pull any preplan genius move, they can just do it by themselves. This system is just a reactive AI to help those forgetful players that often forgot to produce equipment before putting them into service.
So yes it won't be better than doing it yourselves, but it will better than you doing nothing at all.
The short answer of your question is :
In this system, player should have every power to choose to use this AI or not, which line the AI can menage and which line it can't, when to stop production and when to restart. The main idea of this system is to let the players ditch the work that they don't want to micromanage to the game.
AI will distribute factories through different production lines by their total IC demand of the equipment that the line produces. If the demand of the rifle is 10000 and it would take X amount of IC to produce them. The IC of the Rifle is 25% of the total demanding IC for Germany. 25% of Germany factories will be assigned to produce Rifle.
The player could set the minimum amount of stockpile of equipment to reinitiate the production line, and the maximum stockpile to stop the production line to deal with the loss and gain problem.
Well for your AT problem, those are the big brain work for player's sophisticated minds, it is not the job for this simple AI. That way players should able to lock any of their production lines for manual control only.
I totally agree that there are a lot of big brains moves that this AI is not designed for, but I don't know many players that can micromanage infantry, tank, air and ship production all together with such dedicated planings while Barbarossaing the Soviet.
The aim of this AI is to allow players to choose what they want to micromanage and what not.
So yes it won't be better than doing it yourselves, but it will better than you doing nothing at all.
The short answer of your question is :
In this system, player should have every power to choose to use this AI or not, which line the AI can menage and which line it can't, when to stop production and when to restart. The main idea of this system is to let the players ditch the work that they don't want to micromanage to the game.
AI will distribute factories through different production lines by their total IC demand of the equipment that the line produces. If the demand of the rifle is 10000 and it would take X amount of IC to produce them. The IC of the Rifle is 25% of the total demanding IC for Germany. 25% of Germany factories will be assigned to produce Rifle.
The player could set the minimum amount of stockpile of equipment to reinitiate the production line, and the maximum stockpile to stop the production line to deal with the loss and gain problem.
Well for your AT problem, those are the big brain work for player's sophisticated minds, it is not the job for this simple AI. That way players should able to lock any of their production lines for manual control only.
I totally agree that there are a lot of big brains moves that this AI is not designed for, but I don't know many players that can micromanage infantry, tank, air and ship production all together with such dedicated planings while Barbarossaing the Soviet.
The aim of this AI is to allow players to choose what they want to micromanage and what not.
They are too big and too costly that worth for micromanagement. The idea of this system comes from players need to build CV planes annually after building CV.
I totally agree with you players can still do long term planning with this AI if they use it wisely. It is just a tool but not a replacement, it should not take any control from players.
Last edited:
I am just giving suggestions with some constructive advices.
I am not modding because the whole wishlist is unmodable.
I am not coding because I have no access to the paradox programming language.
So I am so sorry, I cannot give you any product to see.
I dont think know if this "recruit a division and set up the production together" even could work.
I think in Hoi3 it was that way but the current productionsystem works differently.
If u set up a some tank divisions which need 180 days of training for normal recruitment. If u want to build about 1000 tanks in 180 days u need a awfull amount of factorys to produce them. The efficiency will be very very low so need even more factorys. Same for the trucks etc. Dont think any nation could have so many free factorys to throuh on a hand full divisions to build them in only 180 Days.
I think in Hoi3 it was that way but the current productionsystem works differently.
If u set up a some tank divisions which need 180 days of training for normal recruitment. If u want to build about 1000 tanks in 180 days u need a awfull amount of factorys to produce them. The efficiency will be very very low so need even more factorys. Same for the trucks etc. Dont think any nation could have so many free factorys to throuh on a hand full divisions to build them in only 180 Days.
You are right. Those 20 division need to wait for there tanks. The AI just start new production lines and rearrange factory numbers between lines.
This was what I was driving at on the logistics screen, what would be additional helpful would be a demand line based off of units being recruited
- 1
Yes thank you, the whole AI system should base on this. The recruited would only trigger the AI to start a new production line, or the logistics system has the feature to do the same job. The coding could be greatly simplified.
Thank you again for your clarify and remind.
After I have done some more research, here is some update regarding the mission altitude with the historical bombing accuracy
The rough altitude for air AA and altitude for ground AA of different proposed mission are as follow:
Circular Error Probability (CEP) is defined as the radius of a circle where the probability of an impact point being inside is 50%, which would be used to calculate bombing accuracy of STR bombing.
% is used to calculate hitting chance for ship and land unit.
The rough altitude for air AA and altitude for ground AA of different proposed mission are as follow:
| Mission | Air AA Altitude(m) | Ground AA Altitude(m) | Accuracy |
| High Level Bombing | maximum bombsight operational Altitude (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | maximum bombsight operational Altitude (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | CEP=2793m from 30000 ft (9100m B-29) CEP=1214m from 20000 ft (6000m B-29) CEP=1050m from 22000 ft (6700m B-17 1943) CEP=350 m from 22000 ft (6700m B-17 1944-45) |
| Level Bombing | 1200 | 1200 | CEP=50-75m from |
| High Level Bombing(Night) | 4900 (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | 4900 (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | CEP= 7864m from 16000 ft (4900m) |
| Level Bombing(Night) | 2100 | 2100 | CEP=250m from 7000 ft (2100m) |
| High Level Bombing(Naval) | 6000 (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | 6000 (maximum speed Altitude of the bomber if it is below maximum bombsight operational Altitude) | 0.6% 1/3( Fritz-X | Hs293 ) |
| Level Bombing(Naval) | 2300 | 2300 | |
| Strafing(Naval) | 1000 | 61 | 30% |
| Interception | maximum speed Altitude of the aircraft (Same as the one it attacks if its maximum speed Altitude is lower than the mission altitude of the bomber) | maximum speed Altitude of the aircraft (Same as the one it attacks if its maximum speed Altitude is lower than the mission altitude of the bomber) | |
| Dive Bombing | 3000 | 300 | CEP= 25 m of the aiming point (Ju87) CEP= 53 m of the aiming point (SBD and other dive bombers) CEP=195 m of the aiming point (F4U and other Fighter-Bomber) 15%(NAVAL) |
| Air superiority | maximum speed Altitude of the aircraft | maximum speed Altitude of the aircraft | |
| Torpedo | 50 | 5 | 20% |
| Strafing | 600 | 23 | CEP= 76.2 m of the aiming point 30% |
| Mining | 183m (600ft) 1940 610m-914m (2000-3000ft)1941-1942 1829m (6000ft) 1943 | 183m (600ft) 1940 610m-914m (2000-3000ft)1941-1942 1829m (6000ft) 1943 |
Circular Error Probability (CEP) is defined as the radius of a circle where the probability of an impact point being inside is 50%, which would be used to calculate bombing accuracy of STR bombing.
% is used to calculate hitting chance for ship and land unit.
The Naval Anti-Air
The current Naval battle AA defense equation is (90%+50%*(90% - 1%*<wing's agility>)) * 20%. However, agility should not be the reducing modifier,as no matter how agile a plane is it can never out-turn any shell fired from a stationary platform. The faster planes conduct their attack, the lesser time they are in the range of ships AA. Speed should be the determining factor reducing the naval AA damage planes would receive. Therefore, the next DLC should chance the equation to (90%+50%*(90% - 1%*<wing's max_speed>)) * 20%.
The current Naval battle AA defense equation is (90%+50%*(90% - 1%*<wing's agility>)) * 20%. However, agility should not be the reducing modifier,as no matter how agile a plane is it can never out-turn any shell fired from a stationary platform. The faster planes conduct their attack, the lesser time they are in the range of ships AA. Speed should be the determining factor reducing the naval AA damage planes would receive. Therefore, the next DLC should chance the equation to (90%+50%*(90% - 1%*<wing's max_speed>)) * 20%.
For me it is good fun to play around with different 'marks' of plane but if they all go into the same stockpile and units then what was the point?
E.g. playing as UK last game I had a play around with developing a very long range Hurricane to patrol the Atlantic. All well and good but it gets mixed up with normal Hurricanes and Spitfires in any squadron and so half of them were in North Africa before I knew it.
E.g. playing as UK last game I had a play around with developing a very long range Hurricane to patrol the Atlantic. All well and good but it gets mixed up with normal Hurricanes and Spitfires in any squadron and so half of them were in North Africa before I knew it.
Because flying in a straight line towards their target is want planes always do in actual combat.
- 1
This makes sense. When a WW2 plane makes its attack, it must aim itself, so it cannot do much maneuvering anyway. The plane's primary protection from being hit is to be out of range. So speed saves lives, I would think.
I never piloted an aircraft, but in my army unit we had a saying, "Quick or Dead". Since bullets are flying about 1,500 miles per hour and the enemy most likely has multiple weapons spraying the entire area, it is best to make haste. The faster one gets to cover the fewer bullets you are exposed to. Running an agile zig-zag pattern increases the chance of lead poisoning.
- 1
Just set your squadrons up with different planes and reinforcement priorities. That capability was introduced in LaR.
- 1
Sorry haven't update for a while as I was working on modding recently.
The flying profile of airplanes
For the system that I am suggesting, simple data that can be found on wiki like wing area,max speed, weight and engine power were used to calculate and simulate the overall flying performance of airplanes.
Their relation would roughly be:
Assuming constant be the general flying profile of the plane, which representing a lump sum of data included but not limited to different kind of drag.
So when players tried to change the engine without changing the airframe.
The constant of every plane can be calculated by:
The new max speed would be:
Changing the max speed with smoothening Airframe would be:
The effect of adding a gun pod to the plane would be:
The flying profile of airplanes
For the system that I am suggesting, simple data that can be found on wiki like wing area,max speed, weight and engine power were used to calculate and simulate the overall flying performance of airplanes.
Their relation would roughly be:
Assuming constant be the general flying profile of the plane, which representing a lump sum of data included but not limited to different kind of drag.
So when players tried to change the engine without changing the airframe.
The constant of every plane can be calculated by:
The new max speed would be:
Changing the max speed with smoothening Airframe would be:
The effect of adding a gun pod to the plane would be:
What would be the benefit for the player/game of all this?
What lacking parts were improved?
What lacking parts were improved?
- 1
At this time, agility gets a double bonus in the air combat formula, while speed only gets the single bonus. As the OP stated in his post number 51, this creates an issue for ground attack in the face of anti-aircraft weapons, because speed is more important than agility when attacking a ground target. Planes are not trying to dodge anti-aircraft fire, they are trying to get in and out as fast as possible, reducing the chance of getting hit.
His idea could possibly make ground attack losses more realistic. It might also help balance the strengths of speed and agility in air combat. After all, a very agile bi-plane is still going to have a hard time against a fast, energized, 1940 fighter.
Partly increase the depth of the Air-Combat mechanic in a feasible way. Currently, Air combat is the simplest feature in the game compared to the real-life counterpart. It should be overhauled in the next DLC. All the in deep mechanic I am mentioning is just the proposed solution of the demanded. If I wanted to type it simply I can just type "add altitude system to the air combat" and "overhaul the air combat system".
Partly putting out some ideas to make Airplane Designer work in a realistic way in a simple fashion, airplane is more complicated than tank and ship, it takes much more than armor max speed and firepower to make the Airplane Designer work in an immersive manner.
Last edited:
- 1
The really successful CAS in WW2 and also today dont stand out at speed.
The Ju87 Stuka, IL2 and even A10 are in no way the faster planes in there time. The are very slow.
Cause you need time to locate your target and then aim and lay down fire on them. Only blast over the area will reduce the chance of being hit but u dont hit a shit either .