Aircraft altitude- will it matter?

[Barvinok]

Historically, aircraft altitude ceilings forced countries to have different fighter and bomber designs. This was especially true for fighters vs. the large, high-flying strategic bombers. Also, AA was divided by altitude ranges. Will this be implemented in HOI IV?

 

[paranoidsteve]

no

 

[safe-keeper]

Probably not directly, but there has been talk in the community of abstracting this by for example making anti-aircraft emplacements reduce damage done by bombers, simulating that bombers are forced to fly higher due to the AA threat.

Then again, HOi3 had three rather difficult-to-understand settings (aggressive, defensive, passive) for ships and planes, and HQs had the aggressiveness slider for units under that HQ's command, so maybe HOI4 will have something similar. Possibly not per plane, or per mission, but maybe for aircraft types, like "all fighters over south Britain" or "heavy bombers on strategic bombing missions over northern France". Just broad settings like whether you want to prioritise doing damage or minimising damage to planes.

 

[Barvinok]

Was hoping for an individual stat that would determine whether a unit could attack aircraft at a particular altitude... I'll hopefully see a reply from staff, on this matter.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Someone earlier was wanting to be able to set things operationally like altitude and I think that is too much detail. I do like the idea of ceilings for aircraft so that if you have bombers that can fly higher than the fighter then they won't be intercepted. That could be a stat added to aircraft (maybe in a DLC).

 

[Denkt]

You can create differen't variant of aircraft. A fast figther with weak weapons to intercept and destroy close air support. A slower figther with stronger weapon for tatical bomber and a slow figther with heavy weapon for startegic bomber but I don't think you get a choice of your aircrafts altitude but I don't think altitude will add much to the game other then pain for the players espacially since it would just be another layer on top of variant system.

 

[Gamer_1745]

@Denkt

True, but if you are an Air warfare nut... ..er I mean person (I am not one of those) then it is something you might really want. And that is why I suggested it for a DLC maybe a good title 'Battle for the Sky'.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

No offense there, but you'd had better to do a bit of search before posting your thread :
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/planes-altitude-adaptation.861774/

 

[Krafty]

Oh you poor young souls.

Forgive them Wargaming gods, for they know not what they speak.

Setting basic mission parameters is absolutely for a strategic game.

Now that HOI has moved towards having actual equipment on the map, not just a strength bar, this is the next obvious evolution. It doesnt have to be as complex as War in the Pacific, but at least have some sort of ability of setting CAP to high, medium, or low altitude.

A CAP at 24,000 feet, will not intercept Stukas at 4,000 feet.

An FW190 at 24,000 feet, against an LA-7. Will lose. An FW190 at 24,000 feet, against a Mustang. Will win.

Its really, really important to have this feature make the series eventually, or at least allow modders to do something about it.

The "Air region" abstraction is a big step forward (though I think theyre too large, Germany should be at least 5 zones, not three as it appears). With that window and a good UI, setting mission parameters for planes is set it, and forget it.

Just like War in the Pacific, or War in the East. You set your doctrines...you set it...and forget it.

Its not complicated, or a micromanaging nightmare. When youre assigning a squadron to a region, you should also be able to assign it to a mission. Then literally you just have to pick, low, medium, or high altitude, and really only for fighters.

I be perfectly fine waiting for a "Their Finest Hour" DLC that does advanced air strategy.

The whole "air region" mechanic leaves alot of room for cool things to go on under the hood. Its abstracted so you just have to monitor it. You dont have to keep hunting down airfields and planes and clicking provinces then checking dozens of counters for a strength bar.

 

[Evilfisher]

they are already working on making the best hearts of iron ever so far! but considering their delays and everything you cant really expect them to add a super complicated or detailed air combat system at release.. and if they do its gonna be even more delays

but yeah you could choose bombers to fly at max height, they would have less accuracy but could avoid certain fighters etc. sounds cool!

 

[mursolini]

Plane altitude performance is far too complicated to portray realistically, so at most, I would agree to simply having "best" altitude (high, medium, low) and combat system to account for possible diference.

Setting mision parameters manually is fine for turj based wargame, not hoi series.

 

[Krafty]

No it isnt.

Thats why theres literally a dozen world war two grand strategy games that let you set the altitude.

 

[Krafty]

Its like no one here ever played War Plan Orange, War in the Pacfic, Achtung Spitfire!, Over the Reich, War in the East, War in the West, Mission Vietnam, Sabres over Korea, etc...

YOU may not want to micromanage altitude and mission parameters. But I do.

You can leave that on automated. Theres no good reason not to add this depth, unless it actually cuts into development of something fundamental. Since theyre operating under a "When its done" policy...they can easily, and should, add a complex air combat layer.

Plane altitude performance is far too complicated to portray realistically, so at most, I would agree to simply having "best" altitude (high, medium, low) and combat system to account for possible diference.

Setting mision parameters manually is fine for turj based wargame, not hoi series.

Essentially, we are a turn based game.

Just the turns automatically end and go on to the next turn if you dont constantly work the pause button.

Unless we all plan to play the game like the Press Game, at speed 3 and no pausing....yeah uh, it has a place here. Of course it does. Theres literally no realistic argument to not doing it, other than "meh, dont want to".

Im personally fine waiting for this game until next summer. Id rather it be the best it can be, than get it earlier.

That kind of patience comes with age though. If it took 3 more years for HOI4, it really wouldnt bother me. Its going to be a great game no matter what they do, since theyre mod friendly. Just since some mechanics cant be modded, id like to see basic functionality that can be expanded on, rather than no functionality in this regard at all.

It doesnt have to be "choosing the ply of toilet paper in the barracks" complicated....but a basic mission parameter/doctrine screen that allows you to manage your airforces strategies, that modders could potentially expand on, is a great idea.

 

[Denkt]

It is a game and I don't think right now that it have much to gain from this, we don't even know how variants will affect the game.

 

[Krafty]

More people from Matrix, SSI, Avalon Hill, etc, buying the game. Thats pretty much what you have to gain from it.

Its weird, in some respects, HOI is getting "more casual", in other ways, its going much deeper into the "Wargame" genre than it ever has before.

Paradox is an awesome team, and Podcat is really a brilliant game designer. If anyone can find the balance between something like "War Plan Orange" where youre like, literally choosing the ply of toilet paper they use in the ship's head, and the 'ease of use' of Risk or Axis and Allies, its Paradox.

But little things like this, are what is going to grab an entire generation of grognards by the ears and not let them go. We YEARN for a game with the complexity of War Plan Orange or War in the Pacific, but the ease of use and interface of EU4. Where you can go as deep as you wish, but dont have too. If you really want to eek out that last few % of efficiency, you can micromanage a horde of things, but if you just want to enjoy yourself, you can do that too.

War in the East has a great air doctrine screen. You just pick what percentage of planes you want to do what type of mission, how "full" the squadron has to be to fly a mission, how many hours theyll reserve for doing "side missions" (like strafing if they find no fighters to intercept), and thats it. You can generally forget it again for 238 weeks. The system itself, the combat resolution itself, decides what altitude your fighters were at when they met the enemy, and who has the advantage there.

Thats fine with me. I dont have to set the ply of toilet paper the pilots are going to use. But I do want the nuance of ww2 air combat modeled to some degree, and be able to influence that to some degree.

That will infact add alot to the game.

"Being Churchill" is great and all, but so is being "Curtis Lemay" and deciding operational strategy for your entire 8th airforce.


Im actually not surprised at all, that HOI4, now that there are equipment numbers, has a battle screen not that unlike War in the Pacific

See I just want to be able to set squadrons to CAP or STRIKE.

Other than that, we're already on a steady course towards "Wargaming Nirvana" anyways...

And heck War in the Pacific, you cant change leaders, and leaders dont really have, and dont gain, traits. So were a step up there. If you add the stuff that already is pretty much standard in grognard games, you have a generational LEAP in war gaming.

Even our "life bars" look more complex than WITP.

 

[Alex_brunius]

It is a game and I don't think right now that it have much to gain from this, we don't even know how variants will affect the game.

Well sometimes it can have important effects. Japan had thousands of Zeroes in 1945, but none of them could be used since they couldn't reach the B29s dropping bombs day and night from higher altitudes. So they ended up using these planes as Kamikazes instead or saved in caves for Kamikaze use when the actual mainland invasion would come.

 

[Krafty]

THAT^^

I dont think people realize that speed = life, altitude = life insurance.

A faster higher flying aircraft is invulnerable for all intents and purposes, unless it has some caveat like the ME262 landing paradigm where you can strike it at an advantage. There were aircraft that were practically immune to combat losses for a period of time.

"The Focke Wulf Summer" for instance. Until the Spit Vb, there was no response to the FW. It had like a 19 to 1 KDR for the entire summer.

 

[Krafty]

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Butcherbirds_Guide_to_a_Free_Lunch.html?id=gt3rPAAACAAJ

Written by another legendary game designer, from Airwarrior and World War Two Online fame.

Definitely worth the few dollars. Its required reading at the two dogfighting schools here in the US, and suggested reading at the Airforce Academy. Its really the definitive book on ACM and the FW190.

 

[Secret Master]

Well sometimes it can have important effects. Japan had thousands of Zeroes in 1945, but none of them could be used since they couldn't reach the B29s dropping bombs day and night from higher altitudes. So they ended up using these planes as Kamikazes instead or saved in caves for Kamikaze use when the actual mainland invasion would come.

Yes, but the question is how to implement it in a strategic game.

Would some kind of altitude attribute just be an absolute insurance against attack? That only really works with strategic bombing, not other kinds of attack that require getting closer to the ground. It also does nothing to ensure that your own fighters are immune to attack, because they still have to engage enemy planes at lower altitudes sometime.

You could run it like piercing/armor for tanks and ships. Higher altitude gives you the same kind of bonus. Not total immunity, but a substantial advantage. But that also screws the B-29s, who aren't taking any losses from Zeroes.

You could do what HOI3 did and just give extra defense values for better engines. But that ignores the value on attack. That being said, should TACs and STR have more attack for better engines when facing enemy fighters? Maybe only an attack bonus for fighters?

What I'm getting at is that for all its warts, HOI3 did take the altitude issue into account in an oblique way. But it's very complicated at the strategic level, because what higher altitude means strategically is rather... messy.

 

[Krafty]

And B-29s SHOULDNT take any losses from Zeroes. Its up to the Japanese player to not design aircraft with a ceiling so limited it cant intercept the next tier of bombers. Japan needs to make choices. Do I keep upgrading my army in China, or do I upgrade my fighters so that they arent useless against high altitude bombing.

But yeah the altitude stat should work like a bonus, making them more deadly to aircraft with lower ceilings. Speed should do the same thing. Speed and altitude advantage over your opponent, should really, really hurt.

Diving to engage your opponent, means you still have whats called "energy" to climb back to your perch, and strike again. Thats called "boom and zoom" as created by the Luftwaffe (and the Flying Tigers)

Thats the kind of thing you set strategically, at the operational level. The high command sets the strategy, hands targets off to lower officers, then they design the missions.

We should be able to do everything there is to do at the strategic and operational level. Telling aircraft "hit Dresden at 24,000 feet, use incendiary bombs, travel from north to south, meet with escorts at Willemshaven" isnt something you should have to do. But telling your strategic air arm "go at night, fly high, dont go over targets unescorted" ARE operational facets set by the high command.

Anything handled by the officer corps, we probably shouldnt be messing with. Anything handled at the operational level, like doctrines, we should control. Part of that is how to use your technology to the best of your advantage. Switching from Daylight raids to Night Raids back to Daylight Raids, were operational decisions based on the technological capacity of their aircraft, and the operational realities of the mission results. (lots of dead bombers during the day because defensiveness was low, cielings were low, and fighter escorts were short range)

When you get new models of aircraft, youre going to want to change your doctrines.

German Luftwaffe doctrine on the East front were drastically different the the West front. Even to the point of formations like the Finger Four, not being used in the East, the Soviet air wings had more planes, so Finger Fours werent optimal.

That decision came down from Georing. Literally the highest of the high command of the Luftwaffe. Thats something that IS in our ballpark in Hearts of Iron.

The problem with HOI3s interpretation of that was that it wasnt apparent in the battle screen with a modifier being listed, and the unit placard could get some ridiculous stats. 109s flying around at 900kph crossing Germany in an hour.

You just had no idea that there was coolness going on under the hood. Even in Black ICE it was really really obscure.

In War in the Pacific its pretty obvious who is "bouncing" who.