Air wings need to have the ability to target airbases

[holoween]

Air defense is critical right now. Here's what it looks like when the Luftwaffe is unable to defend the Reich from air attack.

View attachment 288136 View attachment 288137 View attachment 288135View attachment 288138

32.8% of Germany's MIC is offline. (That's 68 MIC gone, causing all those production lines you see to be inactive and lose production efficiency.)

Germany is running the highest dispersed industry tech, providing the maximum benefit for shielding IC from strategic attack. She has tons of static AA defenses, including 35 (the maximum) in the Eastern Germany air region alone.

In what is most damning to Germany's war effort, 20 synthetic plants are offline. Even if Germany wanted to build a ton of planes, she can't at this point. And her remaining oil production has to be split between tanks and planes anyway.

This is why I tend to emphasize strategic bombing as the UK. I can drain far more of the Axis war effort this way than I can by doing a lot of other things. Bombing is very effective when the enemy does not put up sufficient air forces to prevent bombing.

This was in MP, mind you. The German player was really trying all his tricks to mitigate the bombing long enough for him to defeat the Soviets. It didn't work this time.



Have you tried bombing the enemy when he controls the skies? Here's what it looks like:

View attachment 288139
After 30 days of bombing with what started as 952 strategic bombers attacking Northwestern Germany, facing 2200 light fighters, Bomber Command has lost 111 bombers. Even if I was producing 3 strategic bombers per day (and I'm not at this point in the war), Bomber Command cannot sustain those losses.

But look at the disruptions and buildings lost.

Germany lost 6.8 buildings over a 30 day period. That is practically nothing given the speed with which Germany can repair those buildings. Bomber command is averaging 0.1-0.2 buildings damaged per day. Over 85% of her attacks are being disrupted (I have plenty of days during the trial month where disruptions were at 92% or higher).

If you send strategic bombers into an air region defended by enemy fighters without friendly fighters to assist, those bombers are probably dead and have accomplished nothing.

(I haven't run a test with Interwar Fighters versus 1940 or better bombers, but I imagine even then the bombers will face difficulties. In this test, it was largely 1940 bombers, with a few new 1944 bombers mixed in, versus about 50% 1940 light fighters and 50% 1936 light fighters.)

where are germanys heavy fighters?
against bombers the firepower of heavy fighters is massively important.

 

[yamato2cz]

Destroying enemy air power by destroying the air bases and thus achieving air superiority was an important strategy during the war: Battle of Britain, Malta, Barbarossa, Pearl Harbor, Clark Airfield, Rabaul, etc. You can attack airbases, but it's only one of many targets picked during a strategic bombing campaign. An air offensive aimed at achieving air superiority through destroying enemy bases should not be lumped in with that, IMO. Thoughts?

there is issue with this. theres 3-4 bases in air zone, thats up to 30-40 buildings. 1k bombers can level that in 2 days. tops. i tried. the way it is right now, prevents blitzing airbases to death effectively destroying enemy or players ability to use planes. in hoi3, you could have dozens of airfields along border with france as germany for example. now its like 5-6 that are somehow in range of fighter 1. system is not optimal, id preffer hoi3 approach, but with current system, targeting some buildings specifically would be completely broken.

 

[TheOrangeGuy]

I have a suggestion, maybe it has already been mentioned, sorry in that case. How about stacking minus mission efficency the less targets you focus on? If you do all missions, you have 100% efficiency, but only airstrips would be maybe 20%. Airstrips and infrastructure would be 40% etc. It would have to be balanced so that only focusing airstrips would inflict more damage to them then when choosing more targets, but not too much, drawback is that your bombers have less targets and overall bombing dmg will be much lower, but as I said, less spread out.

 

[Dalwin]

where are germanys heavy fighters?
against bombers the firepower of heavy fighters is massively important.

The problem was not the UK's bombers. I kept my industrial heartland and refineries more or less intact until he got long range light fighters. At that point I could no longer exchange planes at a favorable rate. Things inevitably fall apart if you do not mange to score major victories in Russia, which I did not.

There was a fluke in that game which I have not seen before or since. The AI Benelux nations joined the Allies on day 1. This gave France time to get a sizable army dug in on the river lines between Holland and Belgium. This slowed down conquest of the west significantly and things basically snowballed from there.

 

[Wyrm]

I have a suggestion, maybe it has already been mentioned, sorry in that case. How about stacking minus mission efficency the less targets you focus on? If you do all missions, you have 100% efficiency, but only airstrips would be maybe 20%. Airstrips and infrastructure would be 40% etc. It would have to be balanced so that only focusing airstrips would inflict more damage to them then when choosing more targets, but not too much, drawback is that your bombers have less targets and overall bombing dmg will be much lower, but as I said, less spread out.

I'd rather make bombers take more losses from AA and make them easier to detect and intercept due to them being more predictable when focusing on a limited range of targets.

 

[rust95]

Air defense is critical right now. Here's what it looks like when the Luftwaffe is unable to defend the Reich from air attack.

View attachment 288136 View attachment 288137 View attachment 288135View attachment 288138

32.8% of Germany's MIC is offline. (That's 68 MIC gone, causing all those production lines you see to be inactive and lose production efficiency.)

Germany is running the highest dispersed industry tech, providing the maximum benefit for shielding IC from strategic attack. She has tons of static AA defenses, including 35 (the maximum) in the Eastern Germany air region alone.

In what is most damning to Germany's war effort, 20 synthetic plants are offline. Even if Germany wanted to build a ton of planes, she can't at this point. And her remaining oil production has to be split between tanks and planes anyway.

This is why I tend to emphasize strategic bombing as the UK. I can drain far more of the Axis war effort this way than I can by doing a lot of other things. Bombing is very effective when the enemy does not put up sufficient air forces to prevent bombing.

This was in MP, mind you. The German player was really trying all his tricks to mitigate the bombing long enough for him to defeat the Soviets. It didn't work this time.



Have you tried bombing the enemy when he controls the skies? Here's what it looks like:

View attachment 288139
After 30 days of bombing with what started as 952 strategic bombers attacking Northwestern Germany, facing 2200 light fighters, Bomber Command has lost 111 bombers. Even if I was producing 3 strategic bombers per day (and I'm not at this point in the war), Bomber Command cannot sustain those losses.

But look at the disruptions and buildings lost.

Germany lost 6.8 buildings over a 30 day period. That is practically nothing given the speed with which Germany can repair those buildings. Bomber command is averaging 0.1-0.2 buildings damaged per day. Over 85% of her attacks are being disrupted (I have plenty of days during the trial month where disruptions were at 92% or higher).

If you send strategic bombers into an air region defended by enemy fighters without friendly fighters to assist, those bombers are probably dead and have accomplished nothing.

(I haven't run a test with Interwar Fighters versus 1940 or better bombers, but I imagine even then the bombers will face difficulties. In this test, it was largely 1940 bombers, with a few new 1944 bombers mixed in, versus about 50% 1940 light fighters and 50% 1936 light fighters.)

Thanks for that mate. Learned a lot from your post.

Can I ask how many Strategic Bombers were required to do that damage to Germany (As in number over Germany at any one time)?

I have to say I was more thinking out loud and contributing to the debate rather than making any assertions. My experience with the Strategic Bomber Airwar over Europe is extremely limited in multiplayer, as in most competitive multiplayer games I have played as Italy, Axis Minors, the USA and France...so defending and using strats hasn't often been something i've had to worry about against skilled players.

 

[Louella]

I kept my industrial heartland and refineries more or less intact until he got long range light fighters.

Hmm. Do you think the range of light fighters should be reduced ? And only special aircraft types, should have that kind of range ?

I'm thinking about the P-51 in particular, for this kind of thing. It's long range really changed the bombing campaign, as while it wasn't the greatest single-engine single seat fighter, it was a good light fighter, that could get to Berlin and back.

 

[Dalwin]

Hmm. Do you think the range of light fighters should be reduced ? And only special aircraft types, should have that kind of range ?

I'm thinking about the P-51 in particular, for this kind of thing. It's long range really changed the bombing campaign, as while it wasn't the greatest single-engine single seat fighter, it was a good light fighter, that could get to Berlin and back.

We adjusted the balance of that another way. We decided to start as of the game after that one to limit how far in advance research can be done. Having the UK mass producing 1944 bombers and 1944 fighters with +5 range variant by 1940 or 41 is most of the problem.

I still feel that another big part of the problem is the way strategic bombing and interception works in regards to the air zones. The fact that fighters in Northwest Germany cannot intercept bombers on their way to Eastern Germany means that the Luftwaffe is forced to spread out while the attackers can focus everything on one zone at a time and just rotate every week or 10 days. It is this whack a mole aspect to bombing that ruins it for me. I consider it one of the largest remaining flaws in the game.

 

[Secret Master]

where are germanys heavy fighters?
against bombers the firepower of heavy fighters is massively important.

They're dead, Jim.

Any he would have had were bagged by the light fighters I brought with me.

Thanks for that mate. Learned a lot from your post.

Can I ask how many Strategic Bombers were required to do that damage to Germany (As in number over Germany at any one time)?

By the eve of Danzig or War (October of 1939 this game), I had 585 Halifax bombers in active service with 15 MIC on bombers.

I had also completed all strategic bombing doctrines up to Flying Fortress. (Daylight bombing, obviously.)

By 1941, this is where we were at.

The USA was sending me some bombers to help. At peak production, I had 30 MIC on strategic bombers. At this time, I was focusing more on Italy. The Reich still had plenty of fighters to defend areas I could not reach with friendly fighter coverage. But the Italians were not defending their airspace well, so I made them pay for it. Killing their synthetic plants was a priority.

By 1942, I could reach Berlin with enough light fighters to do the damage you saw earlier in the thread.

At this point, I had been building 1944 bombers for some time, and they were edging out older models in service. 1200 strategic bombers is enough to keep the enemy's production hurt substantially.

By this point in the war, I had reduced production to around 15 MIC and allocated a ton of factories to tank production as we ran Operation Downfall in the Pacific and prepped for Overlord and Husky.

More bombers means less time in the same air region. There is a point of diminishing returns, where you just can't bomb anything else, so you have to move on.

The good news, though, is that synthetic plants appear in the resource map mode, so I can just follow them around and bomb as they are repaired.

Hmm. Do you think the range of light fighters should be reduced ? And only special aircraft types, should have that kind of range ?

No.

I think ridiculous NFs that let you build 1944 planes and tanks in 1941 need to be rebalanced.

As Dalwin said, in our game, we just instituted a house rule to cut down on those shenanigans.

It's the ability to research and produce Midway carriers, Spitefuls, Panthers, and Soviet Modern Tanks in 1940 that bugs me sometimes.

To be clear: I don't need 1944 bombers to hurt Germany. That's just the icing on the cake. But if I want to bomb Berlin with minimal losses, I need 1944 light fighters with range upgrades to do it. Escorting bombers with heavy fighters just results in dead heavy fighters when the light fighters come to attack.

Putting Mustangs over Berlin, as Goering knew, is the death knell of German production. (If Germany lacks enough planes to defend herself.)

 

[Louella]

I think ridiculous NFs that let you build 1944 planes and tanks in 1941 need to be rebalanced.

Reduce the bonus from 50% to 25% ? Something like that ?


Anyway, something I've noticed, while looking at things for my mod.

Normally, the strategic bomber 3, has an air attack value of 150.

But, in the defines, there are these entries:

    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_ATTACK = 100,                    -- Max stats
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_DEFENCE = 100,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_AGILITY = 100,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_SPEED = 1500,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING = 100,

So, I don't think the strategic bomber 3, is applying its full attack value to enemy interceptor aircraft.

But there's more !

Guided missiles, have an air_bombing stat of between 300 and 600. But, the defines limit things to 100. So none of the missiles are doing their proper amount of damage, are they ?

I wonder if this is why missiles seem ineffective.

 

[Dalwin]

Reduce the bonus from 50% to 25% ? Something like that ?


Anyway, something I've noticed, while looking at things for my mod.

Normally, the strategic bomber 3, has an air attack value of 150.

But, in the defines, there are these entries:

    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_ATTACK = 100,                    -- Max stats
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_DEFENCE = 100,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_AGILITY = 100,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_SPEED = 1500,
    AIR_WING_MAX_STATS_BOMBING = 100,

So, I don't think the strategic bomber 3, is applying its full attack value to enemy interceptor aircraft.

But there's more !

Guided missiles, have an air_bombing stat of between 300 and 600. But, the defines limit things to 100. So none of the missiles are doing their proper amount of damage, are they ?

I wonder if this is why missiles seem ineffective.

I don't think the 50% bonus is so bad, though 35% might be better. The real problem is the 100% ahead of time reductions. With a bit of foresight and timing you can eliminate 3 or 4 years of ahead of time penalty and get ridiculous results.

Our new house rule limits ahead of time research under normal circumstance to 1 year. If you are applying a 50% bonus that becomes 1.5 years. With an ahead of time bonus you can extend that to a maximum of 2 years. This still allows a lot of flexibility. It really only eliminates the worst examples of rushing and has no effect the rest of the time.

 

[Louella]

According to the wiki, then:
day missions = 2 missions/day
night missions = 1 mission/day
day/night = 2 missions every 19 hours, long term average is 2.5 missions/day ?

So, if the strategic bombers are set to night bombing only, then, historical numbers of bombers are at a 1:1 with game numbers. E.g. Bomber Command did a few "thousand bomber" raids, so an air wing of 1000 strategic bombers on night bombing is 1:1 with what was produced historically.
But on day missions, or day/night missions, then the strategic bomber numbers are effectively 2 or 2.5 the historical number ? So, if the 8th AAF had 2000 B-17s and B-24s bombing Germany, then to match that, a player only needs 800-1000 bombers set to day or day/night missions ?

Hmm.

 

[Secret Master]

day/night = 2 missions every 19 hours, long term average is 2.5 missions/day ?

So, if the strategic bombers are set to night bombing only, then, historical numbers of bombers are at a 1:1 with game numbers. E.g. Bomber Command did a few "thousand bomber" raids, so an air wing of 1000 strategic bombers on night bombing is 1:1 with what was produced historically.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

That means if I have 1000 STR bombing constantly on 24 hour cycles instead of just day or night, then I am effectively running 2500 bombers when comparing my results to historical results.

I'd like to point out that I don't think either Bomber Command or USAAF got close to 30% damage to Germany military production during the war at any point.

Japan might be a different story, though. It depends on how you count some of those raids; if a Japanese factory is out of resources due to the convoy raiding in 44 and 45, does it matter if it was bombed?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I don't think the 50% bonus is so bad, though 35% might be better. The real problem is the 100% ahead of time reductions. With a bit of foresight and timing you can eliminate 3 or 4 years of ahead of time penalty and get ridiculous results.

The biggest issue here is the reductions being added together instead of multiplied IMO. This means with NF, Free trade, design company and 10% from other effects you can reduce research time by 80%, instead of 1 - (0.5*0.9*0.9*0.9) = 63% reduction.

It's even possible to reduce research time to 0 in some situations currently which makes no sense.

 

[Secret Master]

It's even possible to reduce research time to 0 in some situations currently which makes no sense.

I don't think I've seen zero research time, but I've seen 10 days or less.

 

[Louella]

I don't think I've seen zero research time, but I've seen 10 days or less.

I've had 1 day research times, playing as the UK, or other commonwealth countries. 50% bonus from tech sharing, if enough of the other countries have things, plus a 50% bonus from a national focus, and it's a 1 day research. Sometimes it completes instantly upon selection, maybe when I have a couple days stored in that research slot.

 

[Louella]

That's an interesting way of looking at it.
That means if I have 1000 STR bombing constantly on 24 hour cycles instead of just day or night, then I am effectively running 2500 bombers when comparing my results to historical results.

Yeah, something like that. Makes it weird, when trying to determine historical strengths of the different countries, if people want to play a very historical game. Like, night bombers are 1:1, but day bombers are 2:1.
And there are other things as well. Like, during the Battle of Britain, some RAF fighter pilots flew as many as 8 missions a day. I'm not sure if German pilots flew more than once per day.
So, 1000 Luftwaffe fighters ingame, might be effectively 2000 historical, if set to day missions. But the RAF, then 4000 ingame fighters could be as little as 1000 historical ones, on day missions. Or they could be as many as 4000 historical ones. Making historical balance really, really weird.

This mission scheduling thing seems hardcoded though. I don't see anything in the defines that seems to relate to it.

 

[davidc929]

A

Yeah, something like that. Makes it weird, when trying to determine historical strengths of the different countries, if people want to play a very historical game. Like, night bombers are 1:1, but day bombers are 2:1.
And there are other things as well. Like, during the Battle of Britain, some RAF fighter pilots flew as many as 8 missions a day. I'm not sure if German pilots flew more than once per day.
So, 1000 Luftwaffe fighters ingame, might be effectively 2000 historical, if set to day missions. But the RAF, then 4000 ingame fighters could be as little as 1000 historical ones, on day missions. Or they could be as many as 4000 historical ones. Making historical balance really, really weird.

This mission scheduling thing seems hardcoded though. I don't see anything in the defines that seems to relate to it.

Few points to remember though is that no time did the RAF run thousand bomber raids daily for months on end. Quite of technology there was saying significant period between air raids due to weather, rest periods and so on.

Again with fighter command yes some units did insane amounts of missions during the same day. However this would lead to burn out of pilots (and support crew) in a pretty short period.

They way to model it would be casualties for those assigned to aircraft. And add attrition for just flying operations. So it would lead to a constant trickle of casualties to account for this. Of course it wouldn't fully account for the fact that pilots are highly trained so turnover of them was worse than for other types of troops.