Aircraft altitude- will it matter?

[Krafty]

And of course "air superiority" over an airbase, and airbase attack actually being damaging, would be how Zeroes would stop B-29s.

You have to get an airbase close enough to the bomber bases to do that of course which would be pretty hard with the B-29s range, but getting those bomber bases, or denying those bomber bases, or building those bomber bases, is what alot of the fighting was about in the Pacific.

Asymmetry is very difficult to pull off in a video game though.

 

[Amoral]

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.

We've had the answer from developers. Altitude is not part of previous games. There was no mention of it in the dev. diary on air. And their goal now is to significantly simplify the air game, not add complications. Everything you are talking about is abstracted and will not be directly implemented into the game.

 

[Amoral]

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.

War in the Pacific is a completely different kind of game aimed at a different audience. The goal of WiTP is to abstract as little as is reasonably possible. As a result, it takes about an hour to advance one day of time. In HoI4 the goal is to abstract as much as is reasonable, so that time can pass at more of a 10 second per day type of pace. There is no way the HOI4 team would complicate an air game that -every- reviewer has already said is too fiddly.

 

[Krafty]

To be fair they said the interface was fiddly. Which in a few videos, looks to be the case. A huge list of squadrons and no real way to tell what theyre doing and its difficult and not intuitive to assign them to bases or move them between bases.

It certainly doesnt need to be as hands on as war in the pacific but at least something like this:

With the ability to set some generalized strategies. Which does already seem to be present with the national ideas and techs refining your aircrafts abilities.

And Altitude was a part of HOI3, as previously mentioned by Secret Master. It just wasnt something that was listed like terrain, or leader ability, or radar, in the battle screen. It was all under the hood.

Id like to them to bring that out from under the hood at a minimum, not just throw it out the window. Dont take steps back.

Ill bet, theres already a way to tell groups below a certain percentage of equipment, from flying further missions, like the also under the hood unexplained "aggressive" "defensive" and "passive" stances from HOI3.

Those under utilized features, are all getting a make over. I dont think theyre being ditched entirely. Like the HQ system is now just a few leaders, you dont have to have them on the map anymore, which was always annoying, even though I really really love HOI3. HQs on the map in War in the East is annoying but at least support units attached to your HQs participate in battles near the HQ. Thats the only useful reason for having an HQ on the map. In a real time turn based game, like HOI, its just all that much more aggravating.

 

[Axe99]

We've had the answer from developers. Altitude is not part of previous games. There was no mention of it in the dev. diary on air. And their goal now is to significantly simplify the air game, not add complications. Everything you are talking about is abstracted and will not be directly implemented into the game.

We haven't actually had a straight answer, but I agree it isn't likely to be in the base game, but there's nothing wrong with make the suggestion, it could always pop up in an air-focussed DLC. Not saying it will, not saying the game'll be broken if it isn't, but it's a great option for adding real depth to gameplay without a whole lot of extra micro.

 

[Acesandeights]

Aircraft altitude- will it matter?

Of course, it will. If the B-17s fly too low, they'll get swatted out of the air by some Wehrmacht recruit doing calisthenics.

 

[Veer]

I think one way of modelling an aircraft like the B29 would be to let them take A LOT less damage from fighter and flak, but also do a lot less damage to whatever it is they are bombing.

This will model them going higher to avoid fighters and flak, and the fact that more height meant more inaccuracy.

So compared to medium bombers say they take less damage and do less damage, making them more of a long term weapon.

Of course this is a game so they do need a counter. Maybe the highest tier if fighter can have a special bonus against heavy bombers. Something like that.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Actually the B29 has an lower ceiling than the B17. The b17 had an ceiling of 11900km while the B29 has an ceiling of about 10km. An Bf 109 E3 can even fly alittle bit higher with roughly 10.5km while the Bf 109 G10 has an ceiling of 12.5km. The problem simply was the time it took to get up there and catching them. Thats where the Me163 came into play, which can very quickly intercept and destroy b17 or even b29 while remaining pretty cost efficient while requireing good piloting especially during the landing. Shooting them down wasnt the problem either, those german 20mm and 30mm minengeschosse took down everything they hit in just a few hits.

I personaly dont think they should implement such limits since most of the time you dont fight or bomb at your ceiling anyway. You travel high to conserve fuel and avoid enemy flak and patrols and engage, depending on the cloud level, pretty much at your optimal altitute most of the time. As you said, bombing from very high altitudes was simply ineffective and most bombs missed their targets by miles even on lower altitute.

 

[podcat]

While its a valid mechanic in a turn based game I think altitude is a step too far for HOI4. Engine power/agility in our airplane models already gives results that are pretty accurate because climbing/time to react = engine roughly. We sort of simulate altitude for how AA work though. Land constructed AA reduces efficiency on enemy bombers because they need to be at high altitude for example.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

While its a valid mechanic in a turn based game I think altitude is a step too far for HOI4. Engine power/agility in our airplane models already gives results that are pretty accurate because climbing/time to react = engine roughly. We sort of simulate altitude for how AA work though. Land constructed AA reduces efficiency on enemy bombers because they need to be at high altitude for example.

So this game will be pretty accurate for tanks, but planes can go flying in their own dreams... Very unfortunate IMO.

Let's try a simple suggestion though :
When you build single-engined planes, when you start your production, you can choose between low-alt, med-alt, high-alt focus ; each one could give a substential bonus to shoot down respectively light, medium and heavy planes. And if you choose High-alt-focus, you get a malus in low-altitude missions. You choose Low-alt-focus, a malus in high-altitude missions.
For twin-engines fighters, it would be automatically medium-alt and high-alt focus designs, for example.
Twin and four engined bombers/transports/etc would be considered as respectively evoluating at medium and high altitudes.
And as soon as some fighters meet some bombers in an area, all those fighters (from both sides) are considered as flying at bombers mission altitude, because first task of fighters always is bombing/reco/paradrop/supplying mission dependant.

Would not be perfect, simplificating the things a bit because it's a still a game, but could provide huge better interest in air strategy and air production planification.

 

[Secret Master]

Land constructed AA reduces efficiency on enemy bombers because they need to be at high altitude for example.

I don't know if you told us this before, but I love this change.

 

[Axe99]

While its a valid mechanic in a turn based game I think altitude is a step too far for HOI4. Engine power/agility in our airplane models already gives results that are pretty accurate because climbing/time to react = engine roughly. We sort of simulate altitude for how AA work though. Land constructed AA reduces efficiency on enemy bombers because they need to be at high altitude for example.

Thanks for clarifying, and great to hear engine power and not just agility is a factor in air combat . It's not quite the same, but as you say it'll do the job. If you ever do an air-themed DLC, it might be worth spending an hour throwing ideas around, but totally understand the need to not overload players with complexity. AA approach also sounds great .

 

[Centurion1973]

While its a valid mechanic in a turn based game I think altitude is a step too far for HOI4. Engine power/agility in our airplane models already gives results that are pretty accurate because climbing/time to react = engine roughly. We sort of simulate altitude for how AA work though. Land constructed AA reduces efficiency on enemy bombers because they need to be at high altitude for example.

Is bombing efficiency also reduced, if those bombers are being attacked by your fighters?

Is this penalty gradual (like x% for evely level of AAA, or fighter squadron defensing the target area)?

thx

 

[ObssesedNuker]

While I do enjoy War in the East as much as any grognard, I would prefer that HoI4's aircraft mechanics be easily understandable and something that impacts the ground battle in a meaningful-but-none-gamey way. WitE is neither of those.

 

[ringhloth]

So this game will be pretty accurate for tanks, but planes can go flying in their own dreams... Very unfortunate IMO.

It's leaps and bounds ahead of HoI3, where putting more armor on your plane was the in many ways the same as putting a faster engine in. I don't think there was even a factor for agility.

 

[mursolini]

So, can anyone explain why do we need the options of altitude, as in why would anyone want to downgrade the effective altitude of fighter (bomber), and for what purpose?
Why should USA want to build Mustang that is good at fighting below 4km in 1944?

If your only argument is "new planes have advantage over old one", well, it is already rolled into the way new plane is better than the old in terms of stats, and there is no purpose in the option.

 

[Cpack]

I think this can be easily implemented with a modifier:
high_altitude_modifier = 0.0 - 1.0

For example like this:

1) Zero (high_altitude_modifier = 0.4) meets B-29 (high_altitude_modifier = 1.0)
= B-29's defence was increased by 60%
2) Ta-152 (high_altitude_modifier = 0.9) meets B-17 (high_altitude_modifier = 0.7)
= B-17's defence was decreased by 20%
3) He-51 (high_altitude_modifier = 0.1) meets B-29 (high_altitude_modifier = 1.0)
= B-29's defence was increased by 90%
This could also affect attacking values, this is just a simple example/proposal, figures can be also different
But I think some kind of this logic could do the job

 

[Axe99]

So, can anyone explain why do we need the options of altitude, as in why would anyone want to downgrade the effective altitude of fighter (bomber), and for what purpose?
Why should USA want to build Mustang that is good at fighting below 4km in 1944?

If your only argument is "new planes have advantage over old one", well, it is already rolled into the way new plane is better than the old in terms of stats, and there is no purpose in the option.

I've got m'self a virus, and my head's fuzzier than candy floss at the moment, but the general gist is that different designs and engines tend to perform better at different heights, so for example the Typhoon was great at low altitudes (well, in the early models when the tail didn't fall off...), but didn't perform well higher up, where Spits were generally used (by the Brits). Then there's situations where some aircraft just can't reach bombers at certain heights (or can reach them, but take so long to get up there that by the time they do the bombers have turned around and gone home again). You want good high-alt fighters to stop/support strategic and to a lesser degree tactical bombers, while you want good low-alt fighters to support CAS/fly CAPs against dive torpedo bombers. For example, I'm fairly sure the early FW190s were bad at high altitudes, but very good at low-medium altitudes, so they were used more in low-medium altitude situations. The 109, on the other hand, had variations that were designed for high altitude roles, and others designed for low-medium. At different stages of the war, different air forces had different levels of success at different altitudes based on the range of fighters appropriate to that altitude available.

 

[Evil4Zerggin]

It's leaps and bounds ahead of HoI3, where putting more armor on your plane was the in many ways the same as putting a faster engine in. I don't think there was even a factor for agility.

That's correct. To expand on this, there were four types of mechanical air upgrades:

• Engine, which increased Surface Defense, Air Defense (but only for single-engined planes---no overflying early-war fighters in your B-29), and speed (no effect on combat, only overland speed), at the cost of Range. Quite underwhelming compared to historically, considering the huge role engines play in altitude, speed, and just carrying more damn stuff.
• Fuel tank, which increased Range at the cost of Air Defense. Kind of odd name---how hard can it be to design bigger fuel tanks? My impression is that range increases had more to do with aerodynamics, better engine performance being able to haul more fuel at more efficient altitudes, and of course tradeoffs.
• Airframe, which increased Surface and Air Defense. I feel like hard durability was more a matter of tradeoffs and attention in design than a straight progression in technology.
• Arms. Fine, but strange that engines had nothing to do with it. Even discounting maneuvering, more power means you can carry more arms---you think a He 51 could carry 4x 30mm cannons or an entire ton of bombs?

You couldn't really customize planes beyond the overall type (INT, TAC...) since all plane parts continually upgraded unless you turned them upgrades off entirely (look at your Stuka, look at me, look at your Stuka, your Stuka now has jet engines) and there weren't many situations where you'd turn an upgrade down.

So yeah, HoI4 is already looking a lot better in this respect with the equipment and variant systems. We'll see what they settle on for the combat mechanics.

 

[podcat]

Is bombing efficiency also reduced, if those bombers are being attacked by your fighters?

yes, even if a bomber isnt shot down as long as they were in a furball and attacked their mission is marked as "disrupted" and their bombing will be less efficient for this run