Air Missions

[unmerged(15260)]

WTF, dude? Who said anything about bombing cities?
Now, do you LISTEN to a word anyone else says, or are you just of the "air sucks, and I'll maintain it to the day I die" school?

1. I did...
The system works the same way whether i do a strategic mission or a tactical mission, I can only attack an area.
This leaves me the problem how to attack NORMANDY, not some semirandom province in the area. THe reason i might not want to do a prolonged campaign which attacks 4 provinces might be that i want to achieve SURPRISE. What did the Allies do b4 D-day?
a. Did some random bombing all over france (nicely represented by the current system)
b. Just BEFORE "D-hour" A MASSIVE ATTACK ONLY ON NORMANDY (whether u call it tactical, strategic facility strike etc. is irrelevant but a mission of this precision is currently impossible).
The effect of the combined attack was as everyone knows a surprise...

2. I've already written that i like airpower, i just want it to be more usefull.
That you (Mld) write some nice annecdotes about Airpower which are more or less grounded on historical terms does NOT make airpower more usefull...

3. Why do i have to a gazillion airmissions?
If i order an attack on some pillboxes won't my pilots use their machine guns if the pilots stumbled into a marching infantry column?(this is historic)
Or why will attacking entrenchments not reduce STR or ORG by one bit?
Reduce micro: 1 type of Tactical attack. This damages STR, ORG, any fortifications and reduces Dug-in bonus. I don't need the difference it just makes me have to do more control.

 

[unmerged(15260)]

Interesting paper I found on the web concerning air interdiction, and quite justifies the broad based nature of the area combat system. You can read the whole thing here

This examplifies the use of a fact, but not in the correct way when translated into game terms. Nice story, but irrelevant, which i will explain further here.

In HOI the player is both the political leadership and chieff of staff eg. the Strategic level AND the Operational level Army Group and Army level. One might argue that the player is on the werge to the tactical level of combat by controlling single divisions.
In lay mans terms this means that we are both THE SUPERIOR and THE SUBORDINATE in Mld's story. All the way down to the divisional level...

In HOI the player puts on the cap of CINC, ground commander, Fleet commander AND air commander. Except that as air commander that i can't support the CINC's mission because my forces will attack whatever the AI sees fit to attack. Since the AI does not know how to read the players mind it can't support the commanders intent. Which could be: first attack Normandy with all we got, THEN shift to targets in depth, when the landing is complete.
The only way to support the commanders intent is better AI (to difficult to do) OR perhaps let the player have THE OPTION of better control. Eg. sometimes i want this region attacked, sometimes a specific province, perhaps with an autoswitch to area mission when the specific province has been conquered. This i would much rather have than three mission types for attacking something with tactical planes-> Less micro and less worry

Sorry but your story is at best an acedemic excersise...

 

[unmerged(15260)]

What's not historical about area operations? Let's take a P51 Mustang on Interdiction patrol, for example. No ground direction, so they're hunting for targets of opportunity. The P51 is capable of dive speeds of 500+ mph, but cruise speed was of 275 mph or 4.5 miles per minute. At this rate of speed, you can cover a province (we'll average province to province at 150 miles) in 33 minutes or so.

Now, loitering over an area is asking to be shot down, even with air superiority the Nazis still had aircraft that would get up in the air.

With a range of 1200 miles, the P-51 operating from England would have approximately 600 (and this is probably WAY short if launched from the coast and patrolling over France) miles of patrol fuel and time before having to turn for home IF it didn't burn any fuel in higher speed operation. At 275 mph, this equates to about 2 hours of patrolling, covering about 3.6 provinces worth of ground covered. Again, remaining in an area is suicidal, and passing repeatedly over the same area is deadly. With visibility on a clear day 20+ statute miles from the air, if you remained in a one province area, chances of getting spotted are pretty good. Armed for ground attack, the fighter isn't manuverable enough to combat the FW-190 or the Me-109, so air combat would want to be avoided as much as possible.

All of this means that a standard interdiction patrol by aircraft would cover at LEAST 2 provinces in area WITHOUT even a guarantee of being able to engage anything meaningful in any of those areas. If they kept in any smaller of an area for two hours, they could be caught and shot down.

As regards to this story what i wrote was: Did u just make this up?

1.Is this a true story? Then give me links pls
2.Planes were not given such a large area to loiter around. Since C&C was that much worse u could not just give them a huge area to patrol. To ensure that air support was close they had to be given an small area to patrol.
Alone the problem of what frequencies to use for coms and the need for FAC to have those SAME frequencies shows that this can not be how it was done...
3. What about the planes with less range than the p51, they could surely not cover several provinces...

As usual if you mix up reality with fiction and good stories you can make anything sound plausible...

 

[mld0806]

As regards to this story what i wrote was: Did u just make this up?

1.Is this a true story? Then give me links pls
2.Planes were not given such a large area to loiter around. Since C&C was that much worse u could not just give them a huge area to patrol. To ensure that air support was close they had to be given an small area to patrol.
Alone the problem of what frequencies to use for coms and the need for FAC to have those SAME frequencies shows that this can not be how it was done...
3. What about the planes with less range than the p51, they could surely not cover several provinces...

As usual if you mix up reality with fiction and good stories you can make anything sound plausible...

It was a generic example of a ranging interdiction patrol, standard tactics.

Again, on a ranging patrol, they didn't loiter in a small area. Certainly if they were intended for close air support, which is represented by combat prioritization, then they maintained a smaller loiter area. But when hunting to interdict supply lines and such, they ranged over an area, and a large one because without direct targeting and routing, they had no idea other than an area where to look for targets, and did not want to stay in too small an area as interception would become a major danger.

This examplifies the use of a fact, but not in the correct way when translated into game terms. Nice story, but irrelevant, which i will explain further here.

In HOI the player is both the political leadership and chieff of staff eg. the Strategic level AND the Operational level Army Group and Army level. One might argue that the player is on the werge to the tactical level of combat by controlling single divisions.
In lay mans terms this means that we are both THE SUPERIOR and THE SUBORDINATE in Mld's story. All the way down to the divisional level...

In HOI the player puts on the cap of CINC, ground commander, Fleet commander AND air commander. Except that as air commander that i can't support the CINC's mission because my forces will attack whatever the AI sees fit to attack. Since the AI does not know how to read the players mind it can't support the commanders intent. Which could be: first attack Normandy with all we got, THEN shift to targets in depth, when the landing is complete.
The only way to support the commanders intent is better AI (to difficult to do) OR perhaps let the player have THE OPTION of better control. Eg. sometimes i want this region attacked, sometimes a specific province, perhaps with an autoswitch to area mission when the specific province has been conquered. This i would much rather have than three mission types for attacking something with tactical planes-> Less micro and less worry

Sorry but your story is at best an acedemic excersise...

The game does NOT put us in the SUPERIOR and the SUBORDINATE role. Even in land forces, we are in the SUPERIOR role, while our corps commanders are in the SUBORDINATE role. We don't direct movement within a province, on the tactical advance role. The ONLY command we have over a single division is to assign them to separate corps. Certainly we can set up single division corps, but at the heart, HOI2 is a CORPS level simulation, with divisions being the component force in this.

Indeed, in the footnotes of the paper, it states that the system being set up is "the first time" that the air force is providing liason officers at the corps commander level. In 1989. Not 1939. One of the documents (I'm sure you don't want to read 372 pages...) used as source material is a document examining air command and control in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. In WWII, the decision was made to put aircraft in a separate command instead of directly attached to an army group. NEVER was air attached or directed to smaller units than this. The decision to put air in a separate command liasing with the army groups was done because diluted command was found to be a waste of resources and diluted air efforts.

At best it is NOT an academic excercise. AT BEST it proves that the overall commander identifying and directing the air force at specific targets and assigning specific sorties is an inefficient and wasteful use of air power, and shows that the area command system very well models real world air doctrine and command and control development.

1. I did...
The system works the same way whether i do a strategic mission or a tactical mission, I can only attack an area.
This leaves me the problem how to attack NORMANDY, not some semirandom province in the area. THe reason i might not want to do a prolonged campaign which attacks 4 provinces might be that i want to achieve SURPRISE. What did the Allies do b4 D-day?
a. Did some random bombing all over france (nicely represented by the current system)
b. Just BEFORE "D-hour" A MASSIVE ATTACK ONLY ON NORMANDY (whether u call it tactical, strategic facility strike etc. is irrelevant but a mission of this precision is currently impossible).
The effect of the combined attack was as everyone knows a surprise...

2. I've already written that i like airpower, i just want it to be more usefull.
That you (Mld) write some nice annecdotes about Airpower which are more or less grounded on historical terms does NOT make airpower more usefull...

3. Why do i have to a gazillion airmissions?
If i order an attack on some pillboxes won't my pilots use their machine guns if the pilots stumbled into a marching infantry column?(this is historic)
Or why will attacking entrenchments not reduce STR or ORG by one bit?
Reduce micro: 1 type of Tactical attack. This damages STR, ORG, any fortifications and reduces Dug-in bonus. I don't need the difference it just makes me have to do more control.

1. In the same document I mentioned above, the preparations for Overlord are examined in detail. For the three months extending prior to D-Day, aircraft targeted and nailed the logistical infrastructure of Normandy and surrounding areas, as this was seen as CRITICAL to the success of the D-Day landings. The attacks on the beaches of Normandy themselves were the morning of the invasion and during, which can be quite well represented by the fact that active combat is prioritized.

2. It's not that air power isn't useful, it's that the historical model doesn't fall in line with what generally people accept as "truth". They want air power to reflect close cooperation between ground and air commanders which only occured during the advance, modeled by combat priority as I've said. The problem is that people ONLY see air force as useful in taking "X Province". The goal, and most forget this, isn't to take "X Province" it's to win the war. And as such, aircraft are infinitely useful.

3. What you want can't be modeled outside of the nuclear weaponry, and they are a special case scenario. I don't know how well this could translate to the air units because what happens when they're intercepted? Does the "nuclear code" go off? As it stands, the mechanics of the game prevent a single mission that damages everything you have. Not a limitation of the system, not a limitation of air power, but a limitation of the engine. GIVEN THE CURRENT ENGINE LIMITATIONS, the design is most historically correct.

Given the example of units attacking one target not attacking another, this would simply reinforce your complaints with the current engine. They'd see a target of opportunity in the wrong province and waste their attacks there instead of on the target.

I understand a lot of what you say, and some of it is historically incorrect, and others just can't happed due to limitations imposed by the engine. However, the model as is is the best that it can be, and quite historical, GIVEN THE ENGINE.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

It was a generic example of a ranging interdiction patrol, standard tactics.

...

The game does NOT put us in the SUPERIOR and the SUBORDINATE role. Even in land forces, we are in the SUPERIOR role, while our corps commanders are in the SUBORDINATE role. We don't direct movement within a province, on the tactical advance role. The ONLY command we have over a single division is to assign them to separate corps. Certainly we can set up single division corps, but at the heart, HOI2 is a CORPS level simulation, with divisions being the component force in this.

...

I understand a lot of what you say, and some of it is historically incorrect, and others just can't happed due to limitations imposed by the engine. However, the model as is is the best that it can be, and quite historical, GIVEN THE ENGINE.

I dont agree with the "superior vs subordinate" argument - imo the game engine as it is incoherent - the land command is quite detailed, it allows to command every single land division, you can orfder a single division to attack a specific "province". On the other hand air forces are handled much more abstractly - you can only target huge "areas". In other words air war model is not coherent with land war model, both are handled on different level of abstractions, making cooperation at least questionable.


"...the model as is is best that it can be..." - Perhaps... but we can hope for a better one (possibly in HOI3) - there is always room for perfection - dont you agree ?

"...and quite historical..." - No. It is not historical - you are just trying to belive it is historical at all cost (probably becasue you love the game so much - that you are blinded by your feelings - no offence its just cheap psychologizing from my part )

"...GIVEN THE ENGINE" i dont get this one. The discussion was about the flaws of the engine in handling air power - but what you say here is:
"The game is historical becasue the engine is as it is and cant be better"
- i cant see the logic here.

 

[mld0806]

I dont agree with the "superior vs subordinate" argument - imo the game engine as it is incoherent - the land command is quite detailed, it allows to command every single land division, you can orfder a single division to attack a specific "province". On the other hand air forces are handled much more abstractly - you can only target huge "areas". In other words air war model is not coherent with land war model, both are handled on different level of abstractions, making cooperation at least questionable.


"...the model as is is best that it can be..." - Perhaps... but we can hope for a better one (possibly in HOI3) - there is always room for perfection - dont you agree ?

"...and quite historical..." - No. It is not historical - you are just trying to belive it is historical at all cost (probably becasue you love the game so much - that you are blinded by your feelings - no offence its just cheap psychologizing from my part )

"...GIVEN THE ENGINE" i dont get this one. The discussion was about the flaws of the engine in handling air power - but what you say here is:
"The game is historical becasue the engine is as it is and cant be better"
- i cant see the logic here.

I've already stated that there is some room for improvement, and that HOI3 is the place for perfection.

And by no means am I saying, "The game is historical because of the engine." I'm saying that "The game design decision models history well (as the paper, and the longer document that is part of it's source shows), but the limitations of the engine mean that there can be flaws with the implementation." Those flaws are in AI responsiveness. Part of that is a limitation of the engine (having to separate out facility damage and unit damage), and part is a limitation of computing power in a game of this scale. The perfect WWII simulation would have to run on Deep Blue or other similar supercomputing machine. That being said, Deep Blue took time to figure out moves for the simple game of chess. To have accurate detailing and threat assessment on an hourly (smallest game timescale) basis would require more computing power than the majority of the gaming community even DREAMS of owning.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

I'm saying that "The game design decision models history well (as the paper, and the longer document that is part of it's source shows), but the limitations of the engine mean that there can be flaws with the implementation."

Thats the point where many people disagree with you (and with many other people who thinks like you no doubt). The game design decision does not model history well (we talk about air war only) - but as i said before, you wont change your mind and the people that think differently wont change theirs, both sides have some arguments, personally i find that yours are weaker (you make some good points too - of curse).

 

[mld0806]

Thats the point where many people disagree with you (and with many other people who thinks like you no doubt). The game design decision does not model history well (we talk about air war only) - but as i said before, you wont change your mind and the people that think differently wont change theirs, both sides have some arguments, personally i find that yours are weaker (you make some good points too - of curse).

You keep saying, "Agree to disagree" basically, and that's cool with me.

However, I'll agree with the former air force commanders who talk about air doctrine any day.

 

[subnormalized]

Interdiction vs CAS

You keep saying, "Agree to disagree" basically, and that's cool with me.

However, I'll agree with the former air force commanders who talk about air doctrine any day.

Well, I looked at the paper you quoted, and a couple others, and even though I'm just a civilian scrub, and I haven't even installed the game yet (really need to clean HD ) and just read the forum obsessively, (silly me) I do think there is a point you miss...

Interesting paper I found on the web concerning air interdiction, and quite justifies the broad based nature of the area combat system. You can read the whole thing here, but I'll take a few paragraphs out of it that are especially poigniant, I think:

*snip snip*

Hmmm, my main objection- Not only does the paper you quote imply a difference between CounterAir, Interdiction, and Close Air Support with this sentence,

The US Air Force has long maintained that it is the prerogative of the unified or joint commander to apportion air effort to counterair, air interdiction, and close air support.2

but there is also this paper
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT A DOCTRINAL DISCONNECT
and this paper
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT: REPEATING THE PAST . . . AGAIN?

which get into the differences between Battlefield_Interdiction and Close_Air_Support, and the second paper further discusses the need for a dedicated CAS airframe.

Now, if Paradox went and stuck the A-10 into WW2, then there would be a blatant problem with wacky ahistorical use/effects. I get the impression that this is what occurred with the original HOI, but I'm working on heresay, not experience.


But ignoring time-traveling Warthogs, what can we learn about CAS missions? In HOI2, the current CAS missions mess up by letting your planes wander into a non-front area, mission-creeping into Battlefield Interdiction rather than sticking with Close Air Support. I dunno, maybe Paradox ought to add a logic check to make sure that the "CAS mission- Interdiction" only hits enemies in a province when you have a stack nearby, or make the Air-AI 'cull' the province list before selecting specific provinces from a mission-area, so you only hit provinces adjacent to land units you own... a CAS airframe loiters a *heck* of a lot better than a TAC, if only from forward basing, so improved targeting w/CAS could be flavor-justified that way... (Maybe?)

OTOH, if they already had a nice fast way to cull the area province list, we wouldn't have planes able to triple their range now, would we? Ah well, I guess any system is preferable to having CAS in the form of A-10s wandering over Poland and France during WW2, since people are already complaining about the way the game seemingly has NAVs importing Exocet missles to attack from over the horizon, utterly safe from WW2 naval air defenses... :rofl:

But increased front-prioritization, for the CAS chassis, at least, *would* be nice... [/wistful]

The two contentions I guess are that 1) The system itself is based in sound air power theory and IS historical (as most air doctrine developed in the Luftwaffe or response to it) and 2) That the AI isnt' flawed in and of itself in terms of this ideal, but that it cannot think fast enough on it's feet to keep up with proper application of this ideal.

Meh, the real objection is not the large-area Theater Interdiction Campaign, it's the lack of a true Close-Air-Support Mission. One that hits some province located on the front, and *only* on the front.

Anyways, we still lack a true "Interdiction Campaign" mission, since the only intuitively constructive things to do with enemy units in the rear is Installation Strike and Logistical Strike, the first doing *nothing* to help your later ground armies if the force you're harassing isn't using a Fort, while the latter mission hits bridges and roads while ignoring enemy supply convoys...

To handle the targeting of supply convoys/rolling stock, I'd prefer to inflict an ESE malus (malus= opposite of bonus ) while on-target, since coupled w/ judicious Logistical Strike, you could slow enemy movement while maintaining your own Operational speed.... but this mission should prioritize non-front areas, I'd think...

Hmmm, since ESE is calculated every hour anyways, a mission that targets enemy ESE directly (like Offensive supply aids friendly ESE directly...) would be danged useful, and may actually be feasable... might even be an interesting way to throw a quick patch onto amphibious denial, or something, since the danged supply convoys get through too easy these days...:wacko:

But this new mission might shorten the time frame of a true *prepatory* Interdiction Campaign too much anyways, even as it models the *opportunistic* Interdiction Campaign so... with the current Game Engine, I don't think a true Interdiction Campaign is easy to get right...


Toss in this new mission type, (Description- "Direct ESE Malus while on-target") tweak the effects later? That would require a 'beta-patch,' and might be too big a job. Especially since, like most everyone else on the forum, this is just my silly suggestion here, not a true offer of weeks of free labor.

In any case, I *really* need to clean my hard drive, since I'm up to the point where I've read up *every* FAQ, browsed half the wiki and other stuffs, can b-s a decent conversation about ESE and such, but still don't have the game on my comp due to HD space considerations...( I'm also afraid that a 400Mhz, 128 MB Ram comp will be horribly disappointing to play on. Hmm, as long as I can scroll around the map and open menus quickly, I don't mind "AI thinking" slowdowns.. I think. Ask me next week.. )

 

[mld0806]

Well, I looked at the paper you quoted, and a couple others, and even though I'm just a civilian scrub, and I haven't even installed the game yet (really need to clean HD ) and just read the forum obsessively, (silly me) I do think there is a point you miss...


*snip snip*

Hmmm, my main objection- Not only does the paper you quote imply a difference between CounterAir, Interdiction, and Close Air Support with this sentence,



but there is also this paper
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT A DOCTRINAL DISCONNECT
and this paper
CLOSE AIR SUPPORT: REPEATING THE PAST . . . AGAIN?

which get into the differences between Battlefield_Interdiction and Close_Air_Support, and the second paper further discusses the need for a dedicated CAS airframe.

Now, if Paradox went and stuck the A-10 into WW2, then there would be a blatant problem with wacky ahistorical use/effects. I get the impression that this is what occurred with the original HOI, but I'm working on heresay, not experience.


But ignoring time-traveling Warthogs, what can we learn about CAS missions? In HOI2, the current CAS missions mess up by letting your planes wander into a non-front area, mission-creeping into Battlefield Interdiction rather than sticking with Close Air Support. I dunno, maybe Paradox ought to add a logic check to make sure that the "CAS mission- Interdiction" only hits enemies in a province when you have a stack nearby, or make the Air-AI 'cull' the province list before selecting specific provinces from a mission-area, so you only hit provinces adjacent to land units you own... a CAS airframe loiters a *heck* of a lot better than a TAC, if only from forward basing, so improved targeting w/CAS could be flavor-justified that way... (Maybe?)

OTOH, if they already had a nice fast way to cull the area province list, we wouldn't have planes able to triple their range now, would we? Ah well, I guess any system is preferable to having CAS in the form of A-10s wandering over Poland and France during WW2, since people are already complaining about the way the game seemingly has NAVs importing Exocet missles to attack from over the horizon, utterly safe from WW2 naval air defenses... :rofl:

But increased front-prioritization, for the CAS chassis, at least, *would* be nice... [/wistful]



Meh, the real objection is not the large-area Theater Interdiction Campaign, it's the lack of a true Close-Air-Support Mission. One that hits some province located on the front, and *only* on the front.

Anyways, we still lack a true "Interdiction Campaign" mission, since the only intuitively constructive things to do with enemy units in the rear is Installation Strike and Logistical Strike, the first doing *nothing* to help your later ground armies if the force you're harassing isn't using a Fort, while the latter mission hits bridges and roads while ignoring enemy supply convoys...

To handle the targeting of supply convoys/rolling stock, I'd prefer to inflict an ESE malus (malus= opposite of bonus ) while on-target, since coupled w/ judicious Logistical Strike, you could slow enemy movement while maintaining your own Operational speed.... but this mission should prioritize non-front areas, I'd think...

Hmmm, since ESE is calculated every hour anyways, a mission that targets enemy ESE directly (like Offensive supply aids friendly ESE directly...) would be danged useful, and may actually be feasable... might even be an interesting way to throw a quick patch onto amphibious denial, or something, since the danged supply convoys get through too easy these days...:wacko:

But this new mission might shorten the time frame of a true *prepatory* Interdiction Campaign too much anyways, even as it models the *opportunistic* Interdiction Campaign so... with the current Game Engine, I don't think a true Interdiction Campaign is easy to get right...


Toss in this new mission type, (Description- "Direct ESE Malus while on-target") tweak the effects later? That would require a 'beta-patch,' and might be too big a job. Especially since, like most everyone else on the forum, this is just my silly suggestion here, not a true offer of weeks of free labor.

In any case, I *really* need to clean my hard drive, since I'm up to the point where I've read up *every* FAQ, browsed half the wiki and other stuffs, can b-s a decent conversation about ESE and such, but still don't have the game on my comp due to HD space considerations...( I'm also afraid that a 400Mhz, 128 MB Ram comp will be horribly disappointing to play on. Hmm, as long as I can scroll around the map and open menus quickly, I don't mind "AI thinking" slowdowns.. I think. Ask me next week.. )

The "Close Air Support" mission is represented in the prioritization of combat, not a mission in and of itself. Close air support is, by defenition, close support of troops in battle. Without battle occurring, you can't have close air support. Which means that any sort of targeted mission, like Close Air Support that you are talking about, PRIOR to battle (which is what a lot of people are demanding) is, de facto, NOT Close Air Support.

While it might be said (and I won't necessarily argue with it) that there needs to be even MORE priority given to combats, that is a completely different argument than the individual province targeting ability that a lot of people are making to make aircraft more "useful".

As far as interdiction campaign goes, the paper specifically points out that logistics, infrastructure, and facilities are a part of an Air Interdiction Campaign. In the mission setup, by giving "Logistical Strike", "Facility Strike", etc missions, you are essentially acting as the theater commander setting priorities for your air commander, quite in line with real life doctrine.

In addition, the longer document that is a source for the paper I quoted from listed airfield and AA attacks as parts of an air superiority campaign (as do I in my FAQ). As such "Runway Cratering" and "Facility Strike" become COMPONENTS of the campaign.

Perhaps a change in mission names is the thing that would work. Instead of Ground Attack, Interdicion, and Air Superiority, we can have "Materiel Attack (targeting Strength)", "Disruption (targeting Organization)", and "Combat Air Patrol". This would defuzz the lines between a mission name and actual, historical air doctrinal goals.

We are able, with the current mission setup, to orchestrate an overall campaign in so far as setting priorities and where those priorities should be enforced. We aren't sending aircraft willy nilly all over France or Germany, we can send them along the planned route of advance.

As I stated, the shortcomings of the AI are in not reevaluating the situation on an hourly basis, and therefore "missing" the combats and failing to provide, hands off, the Close Air Support structure that you speak of. If the aircraft are already allocated by the AI to something else, they won't key on the combats as well as if you launch them fresh and give the AI fresh pick. The ONLY fix for this is either a) having the air AI evaluate hourly (major processor drain) or b) having the air AI reevaluate at the start of any land combat (major processor drain).

 

[subnormalized]

Game-mechanic OT air-discussion in blue, for no good reason...

*snip snip*

As far as interdiction campaign goes, the paper specifically points out that logistics, infrastructure, and facilities are a part of an Air Interdiction Campaign. In the mission setup, by giving "Logistical Strike", "Facility Strike", etc missions, you are essentially acting as the theater commander setting priorities for your air commander, quite in line with real life doctrine.

Yeah, but there's no real targetting of Enemy Supplies. When my pilots kill a supply depot or convoy, it delays *enemy* current Operational movement/sped, with little impact on Infrastructure, and doesn't affect *my* later Operational movement/speed. (Well, if it was a train, and not a truck convoy, I guess I hurt Infra a bit, but still...)

I want to do True Supply Interdiction and keep rear movement Delayed. Their Delay, not mine 2 days later. Logistical Strike hurts *everyone* that passes over that piece of land, if *everyone* is using Offensive Supply...

Operational Interdiction, not Strategic Interdiction. A mission better handled by TACs than STRs, IOW, and one that targets *Strategic Movement* a bit better than the missions we have now.

-------
Question: As it is, "Interdiction" (the mission) makes the enemy fight less when they arrive and when they attack(org), and "Ground Attack" makes them weaker in their fighting(str), but do these missions *slow* movement? I told you my Hard Drive is kinda clogged, but I read forums/FAQs alot...
If they *don't* slow movement, then we *might* need a mission that *does*. Supplies/troops move slower when truck drivers can see the dive-bombers circling overhead...(Operationally speaking of course- Tactically, they move as fast as they f****** can!... into the nearest cover )

2nd Question- Hitting a supply convoy *is* a mission for TAC-type chassis more than STR-type chassis, while Bridges/Trainyards are better targets for a wing of STR chassis than a TAC chassis, right? I'm not just showing my ignorance again, am I?
----

IFF (big if here) I've read the stuff on Game Mechanics right, the only way I can see to implement an Operational Delay is:
[HANDWAVING]
An mission that hurts infra only a little, but hurts enemy ESE a lot, like Offensive Supply but backwards...and it lets up pretty quickly after your planes leave... and maybe is *less* effective in combat, since the targetted supplies are already in the province... [/HANDWAVING]

In addition, the longer document that is a source for the paper I quoted from listed airfield and AA attacks as parts of an air superiority campaign (as do I in my FAQ). As such "Runway Cratering" and "Facility Strike" become COMPONENTS of the campaign.

Yeah, though the common USAF term for Campaign-Wide Air Superiority seems to be CounterAir, correct? At least in-paper...

CounterAir would be the totallity of attacking the air forces, even as local Air Superiority is traded off back and forth. Winning local Air-to-air skirmishes is nice, but winning the Counterair *Campaign* gains Air Superiority in a greater and greater area, even if you lose more fighters than they do... if your airfields stay in shape while theirs are rubble, you can lose most of your Air Superiority skirmishes but still win the CounterAir campaign...

Perhaps a change in mission names is the thing that would work. Instead of Ground Attack, Interdicion, and Air Superiority, we can have "Materiel Attack (targeting Strength)", "Disruption (targeting Organization)", and "Combat Air Patrol". This would defuzz the lines between a mission name and actual, historical air doctrinal goals.

YES! Change the danged names... Or at least for the first two. Ground Attack sounds like it has something to do with *helping* the grunts, and starts confuzzling everyone too easy. :wacko:

*snip snip*

We are able, with the current mission setup, to orchestrate an overall campaign in so far as setting priorities and where those priorities should be enforced. We aren't sending aircraft willy nilly all over France or Germany, we can send them along the planned route of advance.

As I stated, the shortcomings of the AI are in not reevaluating the situation on an hourly basis, and therefore "missing" the combats and failing to provide, hands off, the Close Air Support structure that you speak of. If the aircraft are already allocated by the AI to something else, they won't key on the combats as well as if you launch them fresh and give the AI fresh pick. The ONLY fix for this is either a) having the air AI evaluate hourly (major processor drain) or b) having the air AI reevaluate at the start of any land combat (major processor drain).

I'm not *asking* for hourly re-evaluations. I want an evaluation of the *front* when making that *first* decision on where to send a CAS mission. Maybe he ends up in the wrong province, but at least he'll stay *near* the fighting, instead of hitting rear areas...

But since you *do* want to hit rear areas sometimes, that requires seperating the Interdiction Campaign and missions from the CAS Campaign and missions. Dunno if Paradox is up to that sort of added mission/Strategic AI rewrite, but heck, it leaves them an area to take notes on for HOI3...

Hmmm, a good AI AirMarshall needs to seperate the Counterair campaign from the Interdiction/CAS campaign, so if they get into rewriting that AI, seperating those ideas, they ought to take notes on the Interdiction/CAS Campaigns, and seperating them out, so that HOI3 gets it right quickly...

(NON-GAME mechanics air discussion in Blue)
Hmm, ignoring Stategic Bombardment Campaigns for a moment, I have to ask, what *are* the Air Force roles/Campaigns when working with/against the Navy, anyways? Umm, CounterAir and Interdiction may keep their names over the ocean, but what else? ASW/spotting? Antifleet? Fleet Protection? (or is that counterair?) CAS for amphibious operations, I guess, though true Close Air Support might better covered by Shore-bombardment in-game, actually... So what *are* the big Operational ideas/campaigns/phases in Naval Aviation?


I guess Paradox didn't read up on the difference between the CAS Campaign and the Interdiction Campaign. Heck, since CAS gets regularly neglected by the USAF, so I'm not surprised that they folded CAS into the Interdiction Campaign... and they still need to solve the CounterAir AI thinking...



[WILD-ASSED MILITARY SPECULATION]
Some differences between CAS and Interdiction?
Well, the CAS Campaign relies on very *local* Air Superiority, basically you only need Air Superiority over your troops. While winning the CounterAir Campaign helps, CAS can get *some* help/protection from friendly ground-based anti-air, while the Interdiction Campaign heads deeper into enemy-held territory... dunno if modern tech is making this less or more relevant IRL, though...

Different chassis. Sturdiness is one of the most stressed factors in CAS, while speed is more precious in Interdiction since you're frequently deeper over enemy territory. Since CAS missions are closer to your own forces, CAS planes can get better local air cover, so troops expect them to stick around, making *durability* important. However an Interdiction-designed plane is often running around enemy airspace, so he has to *escape* before fighters show up.

Interdicters may *also* get re-assigned to hit airbases to help in Counterair, so speed is vital in such a *raiding* mission. Meanwhile, if an A-10 is hitting an airbase, it's most likely dislodging ground troops as our boys prepare to *seize* the nice little tarmac and infrastructure, it is *not* performing hit-and-run infrastructure and have your fighters cover your retreat from enemy airspace....
[/SPECULATION]

I'm just a civilian with some general mil. history/hobby. But tell me, I do the BS well, no?

BTW, mld, I can't remember if you mentioned it, but are you Civilian too? Or Military/Retired Mil?


[INTERSERVICE POLITICS MUSINGS]
The pages I quote go right into the importance of the CAS campaign, and the neglect it typically suffers under the US Air Force. Politically, I think the best way for CAS officers to grab more official attention is to increase ties to the Army, (heck, the CAS rely on forward-air control already...) and ask for dual-funding/dual-service and manipulate the two Commands into try to grab the wings/divisions/role for themselves by stuffing their best officers into it...

Or maybe we need a whole new Service? Or something that *looks* like it? Like the Marines take the amphibious role, the inter-service role between Army and Navy, and get weird, specialized attention and equipment. Hovercrafts, Harriers, etc, and a name of their own to recruit under...

Just guessing, but I'd think US Army Forward Air Controllers and USAF A-10 pilots would kill for the specialized attention the Marines get...
[/MUSINGS]


But I'm getting away from the game, in discussing Air. My main point is that the CAS and Interdiction campaigns *are* too entwined, ingame. I dunno, maybe the handling of the CAS campaign needs to tie deeper into the ground-forces interface, like how Marines are already used/handled... a HOI3 idea, if there ever was one.

For Now? I'd prefer Paradox work on the AirGeneral AI re: CounterAir Campaigns, and see what design rethinking they get from that mess.

If they're feeling *very* generous, I'd like it if they can add a couple extra missions that target provinces *slightly* differently, (a couple missions that look at the ground fronts, even if fighting hasn't started?) and a mission that does the "Delay" bit of Interdiction. I already did the hand-waving for this mission, (causes an ESE penalty *without* heavy Infrastrure damage, ESE penalty goes away fast when planes leave, ESE penalty less effective in combat as movement is over lesser distances...) why can't they do the work?

Oh yeah, I forgot. It's because nobody here, especially me, volunteered to give them actual full-time free labor. Oh well... Sweden Needs Slaves!!


If Paradox then makes interface changes to illustrate the differences between the various Air Campaigns, *and* teach the AI about this, all in HOI2, then they'll probably go out of business from the labor costs, but we'll give them a Congressional Medal of Fan-Service, given to corporations for "Post-sale Support above and beyond the call of Customer Loyalty"... right after we create this currently-fictitious medal...

"what do you mean they're Swedish, and thus inelligible? The medal isn't real anyways..."

 

[unmerged(15260)]

1. Saying that the engine can not be changed strikes me as strange. Why would planes not be able to cause both strength and org damage(+dugin) at the same time? Land units can do this and air units in HOI1 could do it. Copy paste plus a little tweaking seems about how difficult it should be without knowing any details. This would eliminate the need for different missions doing different kinds of damage.
2. As subnormalized has already pointed out the difference between CAS and Interdiction is the range from the FLOT (forward line own troops). I read the papers too and some definitions on interdiction. An interdicition mission targets stuff in the enemy rear area damaging units(STR/ORG), slowing down supplies (ESE) and infrastructure, this would be a where a HOI2 TAC would perform best. CAS primarily targets units/vehicles and should cause STR+ORG damage primarily, this is where CAS should excell. Planes then and today had very different stats (short-long range, sturdy vs. fast, cannons vs. bombs etc.).
3. A CAS mission should be possible to perform into a different province adjacent to a province which is held by our units simulating that our units are calling for air support. One would assume that our units would be close but perhaps not in actual combat yet.

 

[unmerged(15260)]

Indeed, in the footnotes of the paper, it states that the system being set up is "the first time" that the air force is providing liason officers at the corps commander level. In 1989. Not 1939. One of the documents (I'm sure you don't want to read 372 pages...) used as source material is a document examining air command and control in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. In WWII, the decision was made to put aircraft in a separate command instead of directly attached to an army group. NEVER was air attached or directed to smaller units than this. The decision to put air in a separate command liasing with the army groups was done because diluted command was found to be a waste of resources and diluted air efforts.

That may be correct but there was still a ground air coordination and FAC (Forward air controller) did exist...

 

[unmerged(39850)]

My favorite ideas that I've seen so far about "fixing" the air power in HoI2 are:

1. The idea about giving ground troops a combat bonus where there is CAS/TAC support.

I can envision it being implemented like this if the system of area targeting was maintained: you assign your CAS/TAC units to do ground support in a region. Each region has two on/off variables, air superiority and ground support. If your nation has fighters in the region doing the air superiority mission and your enemy doesn't, or if neither side does, or if both do and your fighters are winning, then the region gets tagged to air superiority = on. If you have CAS/TAC flying the ground support mission in that region, then the region gets tagged as ground support = on. When a region is tagged as on for both variables, the ground troops get a ground support bonus in combat! You would deny the enemy getting the bonus in a region if you keep air superiority. All the normal combats would still go on like normal, this would be in addition to the way it already is. That way your planes can at least try to have some effect even when there is no local air superiority, they just won't be as effective as when they have proper fighter cover.

2. The other idea I saw that I liked was the one of simply changing the mission assignment box to allow selection of individual provinces. The units would just go through the list of provinces one at a time, running the mission in each one. It could be implemented so that it would be an option in the starting options screen, so that players could turn it off if they didn't like it.

I like option 1 better.

 

[mld0806]

3. A CAS mission should be possible to perform into a different province adjacent to a province which is held by our units simulating that our units are calling for air support. One would assume that our units would be close but perhaps not in actual combat yet.

Um...a province is HUNDREDS of square miles. That's one hell of a Forward Observer corps directing strikes into an adjacent province! A battle doesn't represent just the front line between two provinces, but an entire engagement advancing into a province. To be able to strike without combat being active is giving the Forward Observer WAAAAAAAAAY too much omnicience. The prioritization of combat is THE best mechanic for reflecting the influence of the Forward Air Controller against engaged enemy units.

That may be correct but there was still a ground air coordination and FAC (Forward air controller) did exist...

IN COMBAT and DURING ADVANCES. I.E. During an active combat.

 

[unmerged(11633)]

Hmm, massive thread!

Broadly I agree with mdl006, but with some reservations.

As it stands, Cas or Tac on inderdiction missions, launched AFTER combat is initiated can be the difference between winning the battle and losing the battle. As such, using air support to tip the balance between an otherwise close battle is very good. Equally, airpower can be used to great effect against retreating divisions, esepcially if they are understrength. I've found a large number of air units on interdiction (4-16) is often the difference between success and failure of an amphibious landing when more than 2-3 units are defending.

That said, it is possible to win the war with virtually no airpower, and despite often having a vastly superior airforce vs the player, the AI does not use it effectively enough to hamper the player's nefarious schemes. Tac and cas could be used to attack and destroy the players advancing armies, but the AI normally attacks some units in the rear. It often destroys them, but it doesn't stop the player overrunning the enemy airfields, ending any threat from the AI bombers.

As it stands, in standard HOI 2 Airpower can mean the difference between victory and defeat, but equally the AI isn't competent enough to mean that it is. Air power can be ignored for the most part.

In an otherwise equal contest (land forces, IC etc) given an AI nation an airforce vs a player without one doesn't tip the balance in favour of the AI, and it should be enough.

 

[subnormalized]

FINALLY playing demo,will buy in 1 month...

1. Saying that the engine can not be changed strikes me as strange. Why would planes not be able to cause both strength and org damage(+dugin) at the same time? Land units can do this and air units in HOI1 could do it. Copy paste plus a little tweaking seems about how difficult it should be without knowing any details. This would eliminate the need for different missions doing different kinds of damage.

Ummm, I haven't done any professional programming, but isn't this sort of coding (COPY/PASTE) frowned upon? I don't know if mixing in HOI1 code (where forum wisdom has it that TACs were overpowered.) is a good idea... how much was airAI re-written vs HOI1? If it's become too different, I'd think reading/editing Copy/Paste coding could be like splicing the film of Lucas' Star Wars:Episode 1, with, I dunno, footage from Kurosawa's Yojimbo, in an effort to put a cool, cynical, funny, wordly-wise character back into the Star Wars Universe... the result might be interesting, but it would be danged weird....


Basically, a new mission done right is just that, a full, new mission. I finally played the demo, and will buy the full after this quick summer class, but even so, a whole new mission is asking for a heck of a lot more programming work than my 40$ will fund them...

Paradox has already convinced me to part with my money after playing the Ardennes demo, incomplete Air-system or no... They've earned my support as a customer/booster, I just want them to fiddle with current code to see what design notes they need for HOI3. That, plus NAV and AirAI work, I guess...


OTOH, how does Shore_Bombardment work? I thought CAG's could do that, at least, but the demo (Ardennes) doesn't seem to have any use for that mission in a way that makes sense...

2. As subnormalized has already pointed out the difference between CAS and Interdiction is the range from the FLOT (forward line own troops). I read the papers too and some definitions on interdiction. An interdicition mission targets stuff in the enemy rear area damaging units(STR/ORG), slowing down supplies (ESE) and infrastructure, this would be a where a HOI2 TAC would perform best. CAS primarily targets units/vehicles and should cause STR+ORG damage primarily, this is where CAS should excell. Planes then and today had very different stats (short-long range, sturdy vs. fast, cannons vs. bombs etc.).

Well, thanks for the support. I finally installed the demo, and now see firsthand (occasionally) what everyone's complaining about. Nice to see that I read the complaints right, though the situation is more frustrating in "hands-on" gaming...

ME- "No, don't do that! Those troops are 2 provinces away from any of *my* troops, and they aren't even moving any! (Deep Breath, count to 10)...."

ME, 10 sec. later...- "...OK, now do I blame *myself*for being a bad AirMarshall AI-Parent, sending up planes when they should be resting, or are they just being silly-disobedient Bad-Puppy-AI Pilots?!?...(sigh), I dunno, but *somebody* needs to start looking at the actual ground force deployment/deposition with some of these CAS-type missions..."

(NOTE: weird/annoying targetting is worse with Ground_Attack than with Interdiction, in my game... is this the same experience as the rest of you folk?)

3. A CAS mission should be possible to perform into a different province adjacent to a province which is held by our units simulating that our units are calling for air support. One would assume that our units would be close but perhaps not in actual combat yet.

As for your 3rd suggestion, POJC, are you asking for new area-evaluation system? One that shows up in the interface? That's *way* too much work, heck, I 'd be surprised if the Ground_Front_Evaluation AI systems have the generality/re-usability in them for programming a new CAS AI, so new, intuitive, low-micro Province-targetting may be *darned* tricky to add in...

The more I think about AI design, the less fun and the more work it sounds like. I think they ought to ignore the new mission requests until they get the AI CounterAir Campaign done 1st. NAVs are so important they are 0th.


[ADDRESSING_PARADOX:]

Please, after NAVs, try to get the AI to *use* mld0806's AirFAQ, with the whole local protection, then AirSuperiority over enemy fields, escorted bombers for time-on-target, Runway Cratering, etc. Make it sometimes *wait* for the Combat/Strategic Bombing missions, and you'll be doing *Incredible* post-sale support. Better than most folk, admittedly...

We'll just expect a really new, deeper, historically-accurate CAS/Interdiction campaign (where's the slow-enemy-inter-province-movement, but-leave-bridges-intact Interdiction Mission?) in HOI3...
[/PARADOX]


Anyways folks, chill out a little. Hey, popular wisdom is that HOI1 Naval didn't work right, but is fun now, (except NAV) why do we expect a fully-fleshed out HOI2 Air? It's not as fun/correct as it should be, but has it's nifty points already, so why the rush? I know I'll (probably) live 5 more years, and if I don't, I'll have bigger regrets, since I'll still have gotten to play the best, most complete WW2 Strategy game ever made for the PC...


[ADDRESSING mld0806 specifically, and his supporters in gerneral:]
Yes, I can and will wait for HOI3, and not go crazy in the meantime. And I *will* get HOI2 when I have time/money next month, and just from the demo, I know I will enjoy it immensely...It's just when the not-*yet*-complete Air system gets defended as doctrinally and historically correct that things get to me.

Let's face it: the facts of programming costs and the modern PC gaming market are a very different topic than the facts of WW2 military history and Air Power... even what few questionable, suspect, web-based "facts" that amateurs like me scrounge up online.

The Germans used true CAS *inventively*, even partially subbing for the way-too-slow Artillery in their breakthrough when invading France, though yeah, they also invented the whole "Interdiction" thing too...

So the Germans accomplished *TWO* nifty things in Military Air organization/innovation, so what? Please don't take away their second well-deserved "gold star" sticker, dude. I mean, you may *prefer* Air_Interdiction over CAS, personally, and that's cool and all, and Strategically, Interdiction can often be more important than the "breakthrough creation" stage, but don't be mean to the luftwaffe flying the Stukas, man...
[/mld0806]


Anyways, there are a good # of areas to improve stuff with the Air System. For example, here I'll start the discussion with,

[subnormalized's discussion key, for this post]
Problems in normal text color,
Suggestions in yellow
Short <5 word summary in boldtext starts/summarizes problem description.
Silly Rambling in orange

1. "Where's captured/drowned Pilot Loss?", and the other 'owning the ground/sea' AirPower factors?
After all, one of the (many) determining factors in the Battle_of_Britain is that after pilots had to bail out, the Brits could recover and stick their folks back into new planes, the Germans had to write off the skilled-pilot losses... Game wise, owning the ground only means you own the AA, you can't capture/help downed pilots...

Ideally, you should be able to get back *some* more strength if you own/quick-snatch a province that you lost strength over, to reflect *something* about how controlling the ground helps in gaining the edge in the Air... or should we use EXP, instead?
Hmmm, maybe immediately give back strength faster for 1-12 hours after planes have to return to base, depending on where losses occured/who owns now? Reflects saving skilled pilots...or an EXP bonus if fights were over friendly territory, possible EXP loss if enemy territory?... though either way means you'd have to keep a record of strength losses, etc., by province, time , evaluate ownership for a 12 hour period, etc...and it might also mean totally re-writing AirAI, Air EXP bonuses, etc ...HOI3?


2. Radar... how *should* it work? Strength? Org? or..

Aha! How about an org bonus + Increased # of attacks for Int/Fighters? (they get to stay on the ground longer before scrambling, and then climb higher before heading in to engage, meaning more fuel overall, and higher Air-Combat Energy for the initial engagement...) Though actually giving bonuses to *stats* might not be feasible...hmmm...


3. NAVs!!!!!! Do *something* to tone them down.

Ick. Making NAVs lose strength/die for no flavorful reason, moreso than any other plane, seems odd... if my 'province ownership' idea isn't total crap, it might discourage at least long-range fleet-killing... if my idea *is* crap, I dunno what stats it *does* need to simulate whole wings plummeting into the seas, and pilots drowning far from shore...

4. Pilot Training Costs. I guess this is what ties together the Battle of Britain and the ttollay-borken NAVs. You have *big* costs to train pilots, much bigger than infantry training costs, (right?) and that training cost can be near-instantly recovered or lost for good with the pilot's death/capture, despite the loss a plane. (assuming he bails out, and could be saved/captured, depending...) Pilot Loss can be as devastating to an AirForce as Plane Loss, IIRC. If I'm incorrect, please explain...

Current Air Reinforcement costs/Air Strength losses seem to be modelling Plane Loss alone, and ignoring the pilot, as, for example, there is no way that Naval Bombers could rescue/recover their downed fellow pilots all by their lonesone, whereas a *fleet* that owns the seas around itself and is still in good shape, well, that fleet *can* mount pilot rescue operations...

(after snipping think-out-loud in text moment...questioning how str_loss is just one thing, there currently is no trained_personel_losses asking in calculations, "Supply?"/"Surface Naval Supremacy?"/"Where'd I crash? Can I run?" for land/sea/air respectively... equipment and personnel *are* different...)

AHA! For air, and air *alone*, we can add an added str loss calculation "Am I over enemy territory?" You lose str *much* worse over enemy airspace/frontlines, but you recover the str loss at a *much* faster rate/lower cost for a CAS/CAG/NAV mission if you own/control the province/sea-area at the end of the battle...

Won the province/sea-area = Instant 1/2 back? Instant 1/3? Varies?

Anyways, For HOI2, just use a simple flat calculation ignoring climate, (North Atlantic vs. Florida coast is too much added detail/programming right now..) and if the unit actually *dies*, just let it rest in peace. Serves players and AIs right for telling the poor, overworked planes to "keep flying, keep flying, do not surrender one cc of airspace to the enemy..."


[RAMBLING]
We can have "We found the 30(300?) surviving pilots of the utterly destroyed Bomber Wing XXI" and "All attacking Pilots shot down in the Battle of the North Atlantic drowned due to hypothermal shock, only local air-cover survived bail-outs..."-type events in HOI3, and the weird way that losing *specialized* pilots affects you... Yes, that's right, we want *that* too in HOI3, along with those CAS/Interdiction/Counterair/Reconnaisance AirCampaigns, the genius AI AirMarshall, the reworked damage models, the bonus-event-based OSS/Espionage-funding system, the fine-grained officer political infighting system, the.... and after all that, clone our own personal Adolf Midgets and have them be the bonus toy in the Deluxe Box Set Edition....After all, the customer is always right!! :rofl: [/RAMBLING]


5. CAG-tech vs. Carrier-tech. Currently, Carrier-tech doesn't matter nearly as much as your TAC tech, which is weird. Naval-Carrier chassis*should* matter, since there were nice upgrades like improved Radar,(note- fix Radar ) and more importantly, in actual combat, the idea was to hold more planes to send against folks. (did they improve support equipment too?) But in-game, correct me if I'm wrong here, a CAG on a Great-War_Carrier is as *fully* effective as a CAG on a Nuclear_Carrier, weirdly enough... This despite the tiny Great-War Carriers having *way* less room for planes than something like the Nimitz or the Reagan... :wacko:

Can you have Carrier-tech give *big* bonuses to STR? Maybe even to org/org recovery, if on-board support equipment was better designed/laid-out on the newer Carriers... but that's weird stat-based bonuses, again, which AFAIK only work for... hey!! I have a way-cool idea!! Hidden Brigades for Air units! They should cost no IC/manpower, but only attach to the division/wing when "scrambling" from a high-radar province on local AirSuperiority, when leaving from a high-tech carrier, etc. Of course, if the Air units don't share *any* design features *at all* with the land units, or 'hidden attaching' is too crazy or awkward to kludge into current design, then I'm blowing smoke out my ears...


Gack. Look at the time, I need to make dinner. And I should have posted this in enhancements, so tell me to go elsewhere next time I'm weak and enter this thread...

 

[subnormalized]

trying to do a quick, short answer.

Um...a province is HUNDREDS of square miles. That's one hell of a Forward Observer corps directing strikes into an adjacent province! A battle doesn't represent just the front line between two provinces, but an entire engagement advancing into a province. To be able to strike without combat being active is giving the Forward Observer WAAAAAAAAAY too much omnicience. The prioritization of combat is THE best mechanic for reflecting the influence of the Forward Air Controller against engaged enemy units.



IN COMBAT and DURING ADVANCES. I.E. During an active combat.

Actually, the problem with simulating the CAS campaign/role is that the player is launching the planes, when the computer Interface should be handling things.

Seriously. The CAS/FAC should basically be modelled/handled by selecting a wing, giving it a mission order with the word 'combat' in it, and CAS planes should automatically scramble *AFTER* combat starts...

Why did Paradox have people launch planes when the solution is to change the scheduling/mission start system for Air Support? Just because your CAS assignment starts at 12 noon tomorrow doesn't mean at that at that time tomorrow, I want you to jump in your planes, immediately launch, and start sightseeing the Rhineland during Sitzkreig...:rofl: it means you keep reviewing maps, talk to your liasons at Army HQ, and plan the actual launch time yourself, mr. AI sub-officer....

I'm the *Strategic* Air Commander, I have too much work trying to plan how to start re-basing everyone if things go really well or horribly piss-poor. That, and figure out next years' most critical procurement orders, research priorities, new-officer assignments, new unit-groupings, etc.

So why the *heck* am I micro-managing take-off times? Is it because the map is still biased towards land-warfare models? The two overlays for AirMarshall work are *not* sufficient for what we need... they just move micro from exact-province based-micro towards exact-time/immediate remember micro... and then call the planes off when they start finding useless things to do instead... But it *does* get rid of superCAS, so all is well in the world...

Now if they just kill SuperNAV, we will be another step closer to world peace and singing in perfect harmony... well, as close as you get with a WW2 game

 

[mld0806]

Actually, the problem with simulating the CAS campaign/role is that the player is launching the planes, when the computer Interface should be handling things.

Seriously. The CAS/FAC should basically be modelled/handled by selecting a wing, giving it a mission order with the word 'combat' in it, and CAS planes should automatically scramble *AFTER* combat starts...

Why did Paradox have people launch planes when the solution is to change the scheduling/mission start system for Air Support? Just because your CAS assignment starts at 12 noon tomorrow doesn't mean at that at that time tomorrow, I want you to jump in your planes, immediately launch, and start sightseeing the Rhineland during Sitzkreig...:rofl: it means you keep reviewing maps, talk to your liasons at Army HQ, and plan the actual launch time yourself, mr. AI sub-officer....

I'm the *Strategic* Air Commander, I have too much work trying to plan how to start re-basing everyone if things go really well or horribly piss-poor. That, and figure out next years' most critical procurement orders, research priorities, new-officer assignments, new unit-groupings, etc.

So why the *heck* am I micro-managing take-off times? Is it because the map is still biased towards land-warfare models? The two overlays for AirMarshall work are *not* sufficient for what we need... they just move micro from exact-province based-micro towards exact-time/immediate remember micro... and then call the planes off when they start finding useless things to do instead... But it *does* get rid of superCAS, so all is well in the world...

Now if they just kill SuperNAV, we will be another step closer to world peace and singing in perfect harmony... well, as close as you get with a WW2 game

I'll admit, as I have before, that launching an hour after combat has started is a work around. The flaw isn't in the design system so much as it is in the AI and the way it works. If you launch, or even give the order, prior to the ground combat starting, you have a chance that the AI will lock on to it's target, and without an active combat occurring, it doesn't see that as an option.

The limitation is not in the system itself, but in the AI. It gets targeted when you tell it what to do, and then reevaluates periodically. If you don't have an active combat when it reevaluates, it won't see it and won't target it. Most of us launch combat at or near dawn. If you have aircraft on day missions, they launch at dawn. If you aren't in combat at that time, they're not going to see it. The only work around is to manually launch, or launch your attack a couple hours before dawn and eat two hours of night fighting penalties. I chose a little extra micro in my battle planning over extra casualties.

I would LOVE to see an AI system that could retarget on the fly, but that raises the question of processing power. If the AI reevaluated hourly, what kind of processing would that entail? And would the game even be able to run on lower end computers if it did that sort of excess processing? I'm not saying that I know it would be prohibitive, but we already have game slowdown as the game progresses. If every air unit in the world were evaluating the situation hourly, I would immagine it would go down to a crawl when you had air forces in operation.

 

[unmerged(35942)]

I'll admit, as I have before, that launching an hour after combat has started is a work around. The flaw isn't in the design system so much as it is in the AI and the way it works. If you launch, or even give the order, prior to the ground combat starting, you have a chance that the AI will lock on to it's target, and without an active combat occurring, it doesn't see that as an option.

The limitation is not in the system itself, but in the AI. It gets targeted when you tell it what to do, and then reevaluates periodically. If you don't have an active combat when it reevaluates, it won't see it and won't target it. Most of us launch combat at or near dawn. If you have aircraft on day missions, they launch at dawn. If you aren't in combat at that time, they're not going to see it. The only work around is to manually launch, or launch your attack a couple hours before dawn and eat two hours of night fighting penalties. I chose a little extra micro in my battle planning over extra casualties.

I would LOVE to see an AI system that could retarget on the fly, but that raises the question of processing power. If the AI reevaluated hourly, what kind of processing would that entail? And would the game even be able to run on lower end computers if it did that sort of excess processing? I'm not saying that I know it would be prohibitive, but we already have game slowdown as the game progresses. If every air unit in the world were evaluating the situation hourly, I would immagine it would go down to a crawl when you had air forces in operation.

Or you could do the easier thing and let humans decide where planes the planes attack...

No additional computer processing required (just some coding for the option).