Air warfare

[Alex_brunius]

it also doesn't help that the base organisation cut from just having a plane take off from an airfield is 50% from what I remember. when even 10% is kinda BS. and defeats the purpose because all your research is invested elsewhere. that's the main reason why i just never even bothered with air power in most playthroughs.

No, the 50% organization loss in HoI3 is when you rebase the airwing to a new airbase.

It is actually a very small penalty considering real airplanes could not fly at all for several days after landing on a newly captured airfield ( they needed ground-crew, fuel, ammunition, other supplies and such to do more then 1 sortie, and these were normally transported over land taking days or weeks to arrive and set up ).


A better / more accurate model of this for HoI4 would be a check if there already are airplanes of the same model present in the airfield. Then re-basing more of them to that location should be much smoother due to everything needed already being in place.

 

[Daelyn75]

Not a bad idea, Alex_brunius. I think some amount of fighter aircraft should be operational right away to defend the airbase if attacked. I think Guadalcanal, when the 1st Marines secured the airbase and Wildcats were flown in to defend it right away. Bombers however should be a different story.

 

[Jonas]

i just wish that planes at 0% strength would disappear. it always bugged me when i saw an air wing of mine a 0 strength and organization keep returning to the battlefield. i'd also like to be able to specify what priorities my air units will take in combat. like a squad of tactical bomber spending 50% of the time per tick towards logistical and combat bombing runs at the cost of some bombing effectiveness.

It seems people have different experience of the 0 strength air unit. Some complain about how a unit in their stack will take off with 0 strength and then be completely destroyed. My problem is that the 0 strength units never seem to get destroyed. Today and yesterday and all through HoI III I have been annoyed by enemy air stacks with 1-3 units with 0 strength shooting down exactly as many of my planes as they would have if they had been in full strength, while my planes target the empty enemy units and therefore shoot down absolutely nothing at all. To summarise: units with 0 strength do exactly as much damage as units with 100 strength while enjoying the rather considerable advantage of being invulnerable. If air units are kept on the map and not abstracted this has to change. 0 strength units should do 0 damage, should be possible to destroy and opposing forces should target planes that actually exist when the ghost unit is gone.

I have never experienced any problems with getting my interceptors to intercept exactly where I want and nowhere else. The radius setting works perfectly and in conjunction with the on-map colouring of provinces I can choose exactly where the border of the intercept mission should be.

That said the WiR and above WitP air warfare was the most realistic, most fun and most exciting I have seen to date. The AI had no problem using it to great effect. The stats per type of aircraft were much more detailed than in HoI. The way air units were controlled meant quite a lot of settings had to be done initially to maximise the effect of the airforce, but once properly set, only a few tweaks here and there were needed for months and even years.

 

[RisingSun]

I think the air combats is the toughest parts of the game, trying to figure out the best solutions. HoI3 was okay, but feel like something is missing and what bother me is that commanders getting killed for no reasons. For example, high ranking officers dont fly planes, they stay at the HQs. If the HQs being bombed or under attack, chances he will get wounded or killed in action.

So please fix this issues, still the samn for HoI1, 2 and three.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It seems people have different experience of the 0 strength air unit. Some complain about how a unit in their stack will take off with 0 strength and then be completely destroyed. My problem is that the 0 strength units never seem to get destroyed. Today and yesterday and all through HoI III I have been annoyed by enemy air stacks with 1-3 units with 0 strength shooting down exactly as many of my planes as they would have if they had been in full strength, while my planes target the empty enemy units and therefore shoot down absolutely nothing at all.

If I remember correctly though units with 0 strength do disappear, but there is some quirk to it like they have to be airborn at the daily 00:00 update tick or something like that ( time when units are repaired ). If you fly daytime only missions in Europe this would not happen normally.

It could also be connected with fractional strength in some way ( units are only destroyed when the fractional damage they take match how much strength they have left or something along these lines ).

To summarise: units with 0 strength do exactly as much damage as units with 100 strength while enjoying the rather considerable advantage of being invulnerable. If air units are kept on the map and not abstracted this has to change. 0 strength units should do 0 damage, should be possible to destroy and opposing forces should target planes that actually exist when the ghost unit is gone.

This is a general problem with HoI3, as far as I have tested unit strength is not connected to the damage they inflict.

 

[Beagá]

What exactly you mean? That a 10% strenght unit deals the same damage as 100% one?

 

[Jonas]

What exactly you mean? That a 10% strenght unit deals the same damage as 100% one?

Yes.

 

[Beagá]

Where is the thread that tested that? It kinda sucks playing hOI 3 now if such flaws still exist.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Where is the thread that tested that? It kinda sucks playing hOI 3 now if such flaws still exist.

I just tested it without any deeper report or screenshots. Here is the thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?683623-Unit-Strength&highlight=unit+strength+damage



What I did was to test it by editing the strength of the same land unit from the same savegame and run multiple battles to account for variations.

Damage did not differ beyond random variations between the different units, but organization lost was so much quicker that a 10% strength land units could only stay in battle for around 1/10:th as long time.

Edit: here is a quote from Podcat writing he "thinks" strength does not effect damage dealt.

I dont think strength affects it. but I'd have to dig through the code to check which I cant do today (home sick )

 

[Secret Master]

I'm not 100% sure it is a flaw, so much as a quirk of the engine.

Because units with bad ORG don't stay in combat as long unit firepower and/or utility in combat goes down as well.

But....

It does mean full ORG low strength units are stronger than they should be. But since they get out of combat quicker (your statement that ORG is depleted faster) means that, in the global sense, units with low strength fight worse than units at full strength. It just means they fight at full strength for 10% as long, instead of fighting the same length of time at 10% power.

I think I'd prefer them folding faster, myself.

 

[Midden]

The worst thing about Hoi 3 air combat was that a super stack of low tech fighters was effective. The benefit in game from higher tech speed / survivability / firepower was too marginal, even jet power was marginal. Whereas history shows us when air forces field obsolete aircraft they are slaughtered and demoralized, numbers don't help when you are obsolete.

 

[shri]

The worst thing about Hoi 3 air combat was that a super stack of low tech fighters was effective. The benefit in game from higher tech speed / survivability / firepower was too marginal, even jet power was marginal. Whereas history shows us when air forces field obsolete aircraft they are slaughtered and demoralized, numbers don't help when you are obsolete.

+1
Agreed Bf-109 should make short work of Fairy Gloucestor and early USSR fighters, similarly Me-262 should destroy any plane in its path easily. This was historical.

 

[podcat]

The worst thing about Hoi 3 air combat was that a super stack of low tech fighters was effective. The benefit in game from higher tech speed / survivability / firepower was too marginal, even jet power was marginal. Whereas history shows us when air forces field obsolete aircraft they are slaughtered and demoralized, numbers don't help when you are obsolete.

I would argue that the Me262 was superior to any allied plane and that didnt have a big impact because of numerical advantage on the enemy side

 

[RisingSun]

What about commanders sitting at HQs instead of flying? Major General, can fly, but anything above that should be stationed at HQs. The only way the commanders get killed is air raids on that HQs.

 

[unmerged(495036)]

The worst thing about Hoi 3 air combat was that a super stack of low tech fighters was effective. The benefit in game from higher tech speed / survivability / firepower was too marginal, even jet power was marginal. Whereas history shows us when air forces field obsolete aircraft they are slaughtered and demoralized, numbers don't help when you are obsolete.

Are you sure you mean history and not computer games?

Actually history teaches us exactly the opposite. Never, in any theatre, technical superiority alone caused any "slaughtering", that is a very "gamey" presumption.

I am not sure, why
"+1 Agreed Bf-109 should make short work of Fairy Gloucestor and early USSR fighters, similarly Me-262 should destroy any plane in its path easily. This was historical."
this "should" happen, as it never happened in RL. Not even on eastern front or anywhere else. Yeah, the neonazi porn, ahem, I mean revisionist literature describes the german eagles shooting the Ivans in hundreds every day, but reality was a bit more restrained )
Btw what the hell is Fairy Gloucestor? Why don't you check wikipedia for 10 seconds before you embarass yourself?

Of course, the side with obsolete machines achieved less and suffered higher losses (in terms of, say, few tens of percent), but they could always hold their ground *IF* they had enough experience and could adapt their tactics - how to avoid combat if possible, switch to higher/lower attitude/night etc, or to lure the opponent into situations, which were not that advantageous for him (for example, VVS pilots of the nimble Polikarpovs luring Germans into WWI style maneuver dogfights..at least initially).

And yes, there were cases of almost whole squadrons destroyed at once (Swordfishes in "Channel Dash", Fairey Battles in French campaign etc.), but even then, low tech planes were not an issue, obsolete doctrine was (=reckless, suicidal, low level bombing with insufficient escorts).

It's the man, not the machine (quote, IIRC by Chuck Yeager, an authority in this regard I guess ).

of all theaters, for example:
PZL 11 was clearly inferior to Bf 109 - yet no slaughtering happened and polish and german losses were actually on comparable level.
Check your sources for other examples if you want.
However, once one side had substantial edge in terms of pilot experience and doctrine advantage, although the technical difference was not THAT big, well, yeah, it was a pretty decent slaughter - see Mariana Turkey Shoot for example.

So this is what I would like to see.
Inferior planes but pilots/leadership on par - let's say, you are pulling the shorter end..higher attrition, less damage to opponents, but that's it
Inferior planes (or even equal, or slightly better planes!!) but green pilots/outdated doctrines/bad leadership - well, that will be a slaughter, say goodbye to your airforce in a matter of months.

 

[unmerged(495036)]

btw, specifically for Me 262, I can imagine an ingame doctrine tech called say "Airfield interdiction", which would under certain conditions completely diminish the edge which Schwalbes had..

 

[telesien]

Are you sure you mean history and not computer games?

Actually history teaches us exactly the opposite. Never, in any theatre, technical superiority alone caused any "slaughtering", that is a very "gamey" presumption.

I am not sure, why
"+1 Agreed Bf-109 should make short work of Fairy Gloucestor and early USSR fighters, similarly Me-262 should destroy any plane in its path easily. This was historical."
this "should" happen, as it never happened in RL. Not even on eastern front or anywhere else. Yeah, the neonazi porn, ahem, I mean revisionist literature describes the german eagles shooting the Ivans in hundreds every day, but reality was a bit more restrained )
Btw what the hell is Fairy Gloucestor? Why don't you check wikipedia for 10 seconds before you embarass yourself?

Of course, the side with obsolete machines achieved less and suffered higher losses (in terms of, say, few tens of percent), but they could always hold their ground *IF* they had enough experience and could adapt their tactics - how to avoid combat if possible, switch to higher/lower attitude/night etc, or to lure the opponent into situations, which were not that advantageous for him (for example, VVS pilots of the nimble Polikarpovs luring Germans into WWI style maneuver dogfights..at least initially).

And yes, there were cases of almost whole squadrons destroyed at once (Swordfishes in "Channel Dash", Fairey Battles in French campaign etc.), but even then, low tech planes were not an issue, obsolete doctrine was (=reckless, suicidal, low level bombing with insufficient escorts).

It's the man, not the machine (quote, IIRC by Chuck Yeager, an authority in this regard I guess ).

of all theaters, for example:
PZL 11 was clearly inferior to Bf 109 - yet no slaughtering happened and polish and german losses were actually on comparable level.
Check your sources for other examples if you want.
However, once one side had substantial edge in terms of pilot experience and doctrine advantage, although the technical difference was not THAT big, well, yeah, it was a pretty decent slaughter - see Mariana Turkey Shoot for example.

So this is what I would like to see.
Inferior planes but pilots/leadership on par - let's say, you are pulling the shorter end..higher attrition, less damage to opponents, but that's it
Inferior planes (or even equal, or slightly better planes!!) but green pilots/outdated doctrines/bad leadership - well, that will be a slaughter, say goodbye to your airforce in a matter of months.

Sounds good and makes a lot of sense, but for the sake of game, I would stick to the usual technology and doctrine effect

 

[unmerged(495036)]

Sure, playability > historicity, even for me, so anything goes. From game point of view it surely makes sense to reward the player for doing all the research and upgrading more significantly, then what was the case in RL.

I just felt the urge to correct the IMO, very inaccurate statements above.
Someone was wrong on the internet you know.

Also, when I look at it again, i actually find the "Fairy Gloucester" pretty hilarious. Nice name for a plane. What about, say, Pixie Worcester. Or Leprechaun Limerick. Nevermind.

 

[Deja Voodoo]

Hence my proposal to abstract it as much as possible. The less control the player has over the air missions, the less advantage he will have over the a.i.
Simply give orders on a theatre level: air superiority here, bomb there, assign planes, done. There's really no need to be able/forced to control every single air, land and naval unit all over the world. No leader has that kind of control, not even Hitler. So why should we?

This argument seems to run counter to the entire principle of a war game like HoI. No commander-in-chief has the sort of division-by-division control you see in a game like this one.

I believe that people should have the ability to control what they want about the game. Abstracting air combat to the level of "assign planes to theater; get weekly reports" removes a lot of flexibility from players who might actually enjoy air strategy. Sure, air micro has been flawed, both from a realism perspective (sending orders to planes out on mission with instant response) and a playability perspective, but this level of abstraction would effectively neuter any interesting aspects of the air war.

One problem that I really had with the air war in previous games was the nature of encounters. Air combat, which takes place at high speeds in low numbers, is hampered by having a "tick" system: everything has to last an hour, or some multiple thereof. Flight times were unrealistic; indecisive encounters happened over any province where opposing planes happened to be flying; some encounters took longer than an hour, allowing planes from several provinces away to rush in.

I've seen suggestions about having the air war be simulated off-map, i.e. every week you get a report saying how many planes you've lost, losses inflicted, etc. Taking the air war off-map will have a number of advantages, which make me glad it's happening:
-Discrete provinces and discrete time ticks were always problematic and unrealistic; hiding that will allow for a more realistic feel.
-Air units were some of the worst map clutter in previous games. Since they moved so quickly, their present position was never as important as their base and mission, but seeing them on-screen was constant and annoying.

However, planes do have physical locations, and I think it's important to keep the air war grounded, so to speak, in those locations. Here's what I'd like to see out of a revamped air war system:
-Bases/carriers as the only on-map representation of air units. You click on a base, you see the air wings stationed there. From there, you can assign missions.
-Missions tied to either physical locations (air superiority/interdiction in province X) or ground/sea units (air superiority over 1st Armored; bombing whoever 3rd Fleet is engaging, etc.)
-Ability to assign multiple missions to an air wing (with corresponding drops in unit strength/cohesion)
-Click on ground unit -> "Assign air support" -> list of wings in range/region/theater; after selection the wing shows up as part of the unit
-Ability to assign any mission without actually opening the airbase view, similar to above: click on a province -> "Bomb this province" -> list of bomber wings in range, fighter support in range
-Air war results should be calculated often (hourly, most likely) but only reported daily or weekly, as a player option. (How often do I want to see reports?)
-Air encounters with enemy air units should be probabilistic and based on mission profile (two bombing runs won't encounter each other, because they don't want to) and mission location (air superiority over two adjacent provinces is more likely to cause an encounter if the provinces are tiny). Of course, this is all hidden from the player anyway.

And, of course, it should all be assignable to an AI... by choice. I would be happy to let an AI air marshal decide where to base planes and where to run air superiority missions while I decided where tactical bomber runs were needed to make way for my tanks, for instance. But not having that control would really irritate me.

 

[misterbean]

One thing I personally would love to see, is to get the different types of fighters right. For instance, the Hawker Hurricane, during the Battle Of Britain, was mainly tasked with taking out the bombers, because it was better suited to the task. The Bf-109 were the job of the Spitfires, primarily. Spit and Bf-109 had about 50% chance of success, depending on battle (one climbed faster and the other had a smaller turn circle).

Now take those in-game. And, yes, I know they are only "flavour" names. I get that. But, pretty please with cream on top, at least get those flavour names right.
What I mean is this:

In HOI 3, M/R, in a 1-on-1 duel against interceptors, will mostly draw the short straw. Bf-109 is interceptor. Spit is M/R. Doesn't add up for me.
The Hurricane, in-game, is classified as an interceptor, while it was easily changed to ground-attack fighter plane during the desert war. So, to me, it is an M/R, that needs a good pilot to win against a Bf-109.