Aircraft altitude- will it matter?

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Air warfare was extremely complex. More than anything else (even if submarines and navy warfare were very complex too).
Some of us don't ask for the game to reflect all that complexity of course, would be impossible, but at least that essential STRATEGIC parameters have an entry into the game. Agility parameter now is in, nice. But clearly not enough. Altitude-friendship for a plane was as important as armour for a tank (and where ? Front, sides, back, with what slope ? etc)
Ok, let's see I personally don't ask for the altitude of engine compressor stage change, or the time an engine can handle this or this manifold pressure, etc etc, and we could discuss each of those things during hundreds of pages... I just would like the minimum of strategical aspects of air warfare to be taken into account.

For those who seem to be "scared" by my previous post, I just was saying we could choose the altitude-frienship for a series of fighters when entering into production. Then a little picto could easily say if the fighter is better at high, med, or low altitude, exactly like another says if it's able to land and take off from a CV. That's all. The rest would be handled by the game.

 

[Onisuzume]

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.

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.

Meaning, a A6M2 Reisen or an A7M2 Reppu would be able to incercept a B29, they have ceilings of some 10km and 10.9km resp. while wikipe-tan lists the ceiling for the B29 at 9.7km.
As for designing aircraft to incercept said B29, the Japanese did exactly such a thing in the form of the J7W Shinden, and there were blueprints for a jetpowered Shinden, although the war ended before it could be put into prototype.
So, imo, both the Reppu and the Shinden should be possible research paths in HoIIV for Japan.

 

[nexvinco]

Everything you guys have said, with the exception of Podcat, has made absolutely no sense to me at all, you may as well have been speaking Latin or Klingon

And that's basically the reason why its not in the game but will be kinda simulated in other ways (If I understood Podcat right) - because there are far more people like myself who just want to play a cool war game than there are people like you gentlemen, who know absolutely everything about the technical and mechanical aspects of war machines and want to decide what horsepower your engine is or what type of fuel your mechanised infantry drink.

 

[adski42]

Altitude of aircraft was both an important tactical and strategic factor that extended to product design, BUT, it would be complicated to include in HOI4. For example, having high altitude fighters/interceptors is all well and good, but if there's no time for the aircraft to reach high altitudes to gain a tactical advantage the point is moot. During the Battle of Britain and the air battle over Malta, pilots simply had to climb as hard as they could to meet the incoming bombers and often couldn't get to the correct altitude in time (at which point they were bounced). Modelling this would be a step too far, I think as it includes variables such as climb rate and distance e/a are spotted at (factoring radar etc) as well as altitude. As much as I would like to design high altitude bombers and low altitude interceptors using the variant system, imagine managing them - that'd be too much micro even for me. If night fighters aren't even being included, I don't think there's a chance of altitude being included in the way discussed here.

A random question on the air war while I'm here - seeing as it looks like there are persistent wings to which aircraft can be assigned, why have the naming conventions of HOI3 been removed? Unless I've misunderstood, of course (more than a mere possibility!).

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Altitude of aircraft was both an important tactical and strategic factor that extended to product design, BUT, it would be complicated to include in HOI4. For example, having high altitude fighters/interceptors is all well and good, but if there's no time for the aircraft to reach high altitudes to gain a tactical advantage the point is moot. During the Battle of Britain and the air battle over Malta, pilots simply had to climb as hard as they could to meet the incoming bombers and often couldn't get to the correct altitude in time (at which point they were bounced). Modelling this would be a step too far, I think as it includes variables such as climb rate and distance e/a are spotted at (factoring radar etc) as well as altitude. As much as I would like to design high altitude bombers and low altitude interceptors using the variant system, imagine managing them - that'd be too much micro even for me. If night fighters aren't even being included, I don't think there's a chance of altitude being included in the way discussed here.

A random question on the air war while I'm here - seeing as it looks like there are persistent wings to which aircraft can be assigned, why have the naming conventions of HOI3 been removed? Unless I've misunderstood, of course (more than a mere possibility!).

That's why we just ask for an abstracted solution, just by choosing if we want those fighters to be better at low altitude, or next those better at high altitude, etc... Very simple, easy to abstract and model and we'd be happy with a system that makes us thinking about matching our fighters production with the startegic situation.

For example, as Germany, I likely could produce low/med alt from 39 to 42, and then focus way more on high alt to prevent the bombing waves. Again, this is ELEMENTAL strategy, not a very complicated aspect.
Then we'd talk about technologies, but that's a research story.

 

[BeauNiddle]

That's why we just ask for an abstracted solution, just by choosing if we want those fighters to be better at low altitude, or next those better at high altitude, etc... Very simple, easy to abstract and model and we'd be happy with a system that makes us thinking about matching our fighters production with the startegic situation.

For example, as Germany, I likely could produce low/med alt from 39 to 42, and then focus way more on high alt to prevent the bombing waves. Again, this is ELEMENTAL strategy, not a very complicated aspect.
Then we'd talk about technologies, but that's a research story.

Why would you ever choose to build a low alt vehicle?

Without adding a lot of modifiers all you're doing is adding a selection for "do you want to be competent?" which isn't an interesting choice (it might be vital but it's not interesting). Is there any capability that your system offers that isn't covered by Paradox's solution of comparing engine powers?

 

[adski42]

Why would you ever choose to build a low alt vehicle?

Without adding a lot of modifiers all you're doing is adding a selection for "do you want to be competent?" which isn't an interesting choice (it might be vital but it's not interesting). Is there any capability that your system offers that isn't covered by Paradox's solution of comparing engine powers?

This is where it gets complex IMO - historically variants were built that were good at different altitudes - one of the reasons there were so many marks of Spitfires. So if you built a good low altitude fighter your opponent has to match it. Bombing at low altitude gives you better accuracy and you're spotted later, but on the flip side you're in real danger of being bounced and suffering heavy flak damage. It's an interesting dynamic and if it can be done it could really add to the air war. The only thing is reducing the micro to make it manageable.

 

[Krafty]

Everything you guys have said, with the exception of Podcat, has made absolutely no sense to me at all, you may as well have been speaking Latin or Klingon

And that's basically the reason why its not in the game but will be kinda simulated in other ways (If I understood Podcat right) - because there are far more people like myself who just want to play a cool war game than there are people like you gentlemen, who know absolutely everything about the technical and mechanical aspects of war machines and want to decide what horsepower your engine is or what type of fuel your mechanised infantry drink.

To be fair, the sheer number of people asking about it, does indicate there are people who are interested in it.

Being fair to that, the forum goers are not an accurate representation of the purchasing public.

Ideally, you want to get both crowds. You have a UI that makes it simple and easy to use with decent efficiency, but complex enough that those of us who dive into it are in micromanaging heaven.

 

[Krafty]

Why would you ever choose to build a low alt vehicle?

Without adding a lot of modifiers all you're doing is adding a selection for "do you want to be competent?" which isn't an interesting choice (it might be vital but it's not interesting). Is there any capability that your system offers that isn't covered by Paradox's solution of comparing engine powers?

Like the other guy said, this is where it gets complex.

Historically as he said, an aircraft that say had a 10km ceiling, wasnt "at its best" at all those altitudes, against all the possible things you could "fight". Even with evenly matched aircraft, like the 109E-1 and the Spit-1a, there were altitudes where one was a clearly better performer by accident.

Which this was discovered, they were able to design aircraft to help find and take advantage of "its envelope" that area in which it was at its best.

To further answer why you would build a low altitude aircraft, is to do things at low altitude. The ground forces are at low altitude. Anything which interacts with them, wants to be a great aircraft at low altitude. If your a CAS plane, you want to be good at low altitude. If youre escorting a CAS plane, you want to be good at low altitude. If you want to accurately hit a target, you want to be at low altitude. So you have low altitude TAC bombers, like the B-26 or A-20, Blenhiem, and high altitude TAC bombers, like the HE-111, (the Ju-88 would be low altitude) and even hybrids, like the G4M Betty, who excels at nothing, but can do both jobs adequetely. She can be at 20,000 feet dropping bombs on troops, or 50 feet off the waves dropping a torpedo. (Im looking forward to our variant system quite alot)

Even in CAS planes. You have high(er) altitude CAS planes, like a Stuka (dive bomber for most of its career), and low altitude CAS planes, like a Sturmovik (slash attack). You have low altitude fighter bombers, like the FW190, and high altitude fighter bombers, like the P47. An FW190 against a P47 at low altitude, will do better than an FW190 at high altitude.

A high altitude P47 would have trouble with a Sturmovik, but would swat Stukas out of the sky. A low altitude FW190, has no trouble with Sturmoviks, but would have trouble with Pe-2s.

Trying to intercept He-111s, with Yaks, will not work as well as with Lavotchkins. Where as Yaks will be in their prime against Ju-88s.

They sound like theyre trying to abstract this...so thats at least a good step.

Im hoping for a TFH like DLC that will add more complexity and realism down the road.

The eastern front took place at low altitude because most air actions revolved around ground forces.

The western front took place at a much higher altitude because there wasnt much if any ground forces to deal with until the near end of hte war. This meant Germany was in a situation where it had to develop two entirely different kinds of air forces to meet the needs it had.

THATS what I want to see represented. Those kinds of big stragetic decisions. And the ability to try and cope with the fact that you cant be the master of everything, sometimes you have to try and find out how to use your thing you created to beat _____ can be used to meet the threat of _______. Sometimes those old useless FWs that arent a match for the Spit.Vb, take on a whole new life in their low altitude Ost Front environment.

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Why would you ever choose to build a low alt vehicle?

Without adding a lot of modifiers all you're doing is adding a selection for "do you want to be competent?" which isn't an interesting choice (it might be vital but it's not interesting). Is there any capability that your system offers that isn't covered by Paradox's solution of comparing engine powers?

You don't get it : just because your high-alt friendly fighter will be an anvil at low altitude.

To much simplificate the things, we could say that :

low-alt (~ 0 - 2000m) : good for tactical support and corresponding air superiority.
med-alt (~ 2000 - 6000m) : good overall air superiority, and adaptability
high-alt (~ 6000 - more) : Tactic/Strategic bombers reaching, and corresponding air superiority.

Obviously, there is also the relative AAA aspect.

 

[aphrochine]

In WitP, you are giving specific orders to air units and setting detailed parameters for those missions. Considering the game is admittedly a game primarily centered around airwar, with naval operations being more of an enabler of the air war...THAT dynamic/mechanic/interaction IS the game. It's a very specific element that's at the heart of WitP's game play. I'm not sure it has a place in a grand strategy title, especially a real time one.

(for the record, I've played both witp and hoi multiplayer for years and years)