An Idea: Take Airforces and Submarines off the map

[kermite]

Come on, you can't be serious.

Air combat and submarine combat should be improved and tweaked. Not removed!

+1 I like moving sub around, check them on the map...and send DD to sink them.

 

[D Inqu]

While I do get this, how could I be able to controll my airforce tactically? Not all games are with SU, USA, GER or GB where these type of MM gets tedious. Put your airforce on abstracted AI-controll as Hungary against Yugoslavia and watch them fail misserably is not something I would like when I need that extre per cent of firepower to win the decisive battle.

If MM is the problem, there are ways to solve that (there are in HOI3). If unrealistic stacks that fights unrealistic airbattles are the problem, it really needs to be balanced against gameplay: Would it be better if you had thousand of little airbattles all over the map, that lasted for 1/10 of a second (Real life time that is) and where you would have no chance to see what's going on? No.

So, since you want to be able to see your air units (for immersion and you know, a modern age war game without air units is kind of stupid), use them in special missions from time to time, but not wanna MM a huge airforce all the time, there's really one solution: Get the current system to work, rather then to abstract it. Get the AI to not waste all the planes their given and make us be able to tell the AI what we want it to do with the units we give them.

Or am I missing something crucial here?

Just like you could assign targets for the AI in HOI, you would be able to do the same. If Hungary goes to war with Yugoslavia, it would not send every sigle plane over a single battlefield, espaecially with no notice - that kind stuff is what I want to go. On the other hand, you could assign a priority for air support for that particulate offensive, like IRL.

I would rather not see the stupid air stacks that them being in-game. It's something that cannot be "fixed", the whole concept, that is a relic of HOI1, is simply not good.

I get no immersion from seeing 800 german fighters and CAS clash with 600 allied interceptors and TAC all over one tiny province, and be resolved in 2 hours. It's very anti-immersive. I would much rather prefer an end of-day report like:

1. German forces have overall air superiority over the theater.
2. Air recon of the allied forces is satifactory.
3. The army going for the target "Calais" request 100 additional CAS.
4. Major air battles at "Calais" and "Metz"
5. Losses:
INT - 12 (X% daily production)
CAS - 5 (Y% daily production)
TAC - 3 (Z% daily production)
Current reserves will sustain operation for an expected 43 days.

 

[Opus]

Just like you could assign targets for the AI in HOI, you would be able to do the same. If Hungary goes to war with Yugoslavia, it would not send every sigle plane over a single battlefield, espaecially with no notice - that kind stuff is what I want to go. On the other hand, you could assign a priority for air support for that particulate offensive, like IRL.

I would rather not see the stupid air stacks that them being in-game. It's something that cannot be "fixed", the whole concept, that is a relic of HOI1, is simply not good.

I get no immersion from seeing 800 german fighters and CAS clash with 600 allied interceptors and TAC all over one tiny province, and be resolved in 2 hours. It's very anti-immersive. I would much rather prefer an end of-day report like:

Sure, I get this. But then it would really just be necessary for you to think of a wing of 4 fighter squadrons as 40 planes, or 4, or 10, insted of 400. If the numbers bother you. Thats really not a reason to take away something that should be in a WW2-game. Planes.

The way I see it, it's not so much about realism (if you wan't realism, you should put everything on AI. You have ministers for everything, generals for your theathers and so on. You don't really need to do squat, except DOW and decissions) but about fun. Airforce is fun. To learn to use it to your advantage is fun. Airforce and fleets represent the zenit of your nations capability, technologically and industrial. Thats fun.

Abstractions of airforce, on the other hand, is boring and though it may be handy on several occations, I think it will take away from the game in an unneccessary way. It's a quick fix, and though it may be better then the current system (especally with the current AI capability) it's not good.

 

[D Inqu]

1.Sure, I get this. But then it would really just be necessary for you to think of a wing of 4 fighter squadrons as 40 planes, or 4, or 10, insted of 400. If the numbers bother you. Thats really not a reason to take away something that should be in a WW2-game. Planes.

The way I see it, it's not so much about realism (if you wan't realism, you should put everything on AI. You have ministers for everything, generals for your theathers and so on. You don't really need to do squat, except DOW and decissions) but about fun. Airforce is fun. To learn to use it to your advantage is fun. Airforce and fleets represent the zenit of your nations capability, technologically and industrial. Thats fun.

Abstractions of airforce, on the other hand, is boring and though it may be handy on several occations, I think it will take away from the game in an unneccessary way. It's a quick fix, and though it may be better then the current system (especally with the current AI capability) it's not good.

1. No, that's the idea, you don't micromanage anything, you switch to macromanagement. The planes are still in-game. Just better than the 10-year old system.

2. The AI simply can't micromanage the airforce, just like they fail to use land force properly. And learning to exploit the the current system is not fun. There is a reason why most multiplayer games limit the airforce - they current system is just not working for fair games.

3. I don't thnik we're going to reach an agreement there. To me, the current stacks are boring to the point they kill gameplay. An off-map approach will add gameplay, add immersion, add strategy to a strategy game.

 

[Opus]

1. No, that's the idea, you don't micromanage anything, you switch to macromanagement. The planes are still in-game. Just better than the 10-year old system.

But not as units, right? So basicly, I can't click on a bomber wing and tell it to bomb something? But I can tell a general (the AI) to use numbers from a pool to bomb stuff. Thats the idea? I don't think that it's "better" in the sense that people will get this. If you order the production of 10 bombers, you'd acctually expect to see and be able to use 10 bombers. I just don't think that this will sit well with (foremost) new players at all. As I said, personally I could handle it and be able to use it properly, but if you actually build stuff, you'd wanna use it yourself.

2. The AI simply can't micromanage the airforce, just like they fail to use land force properly. And learning to exploit the the current system is not fun. There is a reason why most multiplayer games limit the airforce - they current system is just not working for fair games.

This is under the assumption that HOI4 will use a decade year old AI with no improvments. That's not going to be the case, I'm sure of it. The differnce in AI-preformance between HOI3 vanilla and HOI3+TFH alone is like night and day. If however, there's for some reason impossible to get it working properly by building on the current system (with counters on map), then I would be more prone to agree with you. But I don't think that's going to be the case.

What I object the most is that many of the wishes for cutting stuff or abstraction is based on this assumption: "It didn't work 10 years ago so it won't work now. Since it's a mess, we need to get rid of it". A lot of the systems in HOI3 is, in theory, great, and I'm not against being able to easier handle strategic warfare, but abstractions do how ever limit player choice, and that I am against.

The game is in pre-Alpha. There's a chance that suggestions that comes up here will be implemented (witch is a good thing) but that does come with some responsability from the community too. (Not saying that this suggestion is irresponsible in any way, and people do mean well with their suggestions ofc, but sometimes I get the feeling that it isn't very much thought behind some of the things people write. To the point where I acctually starts to question if I own a uniqe copy of HOI3 that works better then anyone elses).

Someone said, in some thread, that if you'd combine all the suggestions about cutting stuff and abstractions, we'll end up clicking on a spreadsheet. I start too agree.

3. I don't thnik we're going to reach an agreement there. To me, the current stacks are boring to the point they kill gameplay. An off-map approach will add gameplay, add immersion, add strategy to a strategy game.

No, probably not since it's mostly a matter of taste. But it should be possible to strike a balance between the tedium of a prolonged air-campaign and the need and want for the ability to down to the hour controll your airforce from time to time in a simple way.

 

[D Inqu]

No, probably not since it's mostly a matter of taste. But it should be possible to strike a balance between the tedium of a prolonged air-campaign and the need and want for the ability to down to the hour controll your airforce from time to time in a simple way.

Well, hopefully the devs will find a balance between the old system and make it something realistic without complicating it.

 

[Rudawitz]

I like this idea. Assign planes to an area of the map (or army), give them priorities that they carry out continuously and focus some of them on a single province to support an offensive or something. Meanwhile other ground units in the area/army still get the bonuses provided by the planes that are not earmarked for the offensive, without all the fuss and micro management that it would currently entail.

Edit: In the long run at least, since no babysitting would be needed and the air missions would be tied to the ground units not the provinces.

If I do not missunderstand you, this has been possible for years. You assign your fighter wings (or whatever type of planes you wish) to the OOB and put it on AI-control.

You don't misunderstand me and I understand that what I described is doable in the game, at least to an extent. However the way air wings target each other, you have to constantly worry about loosing an entire wing if you don't check back regularly. Now, I'm not great at the air war aspect of the game, but I can't be the only one who find extremely tiring to have to cycle new wings into a unit of 4xINT/TAC or whatever just because one of the wings gets chewed up up and the other three escape almost unharmed. The result is that I have to ground three perfectly fit wings, manually remove the damaged one, manually add a fresh wing and lastly set up mission parameters again. During a campaign this will happen alot if you play as a major. I don't know if there is a smoother way to handle this problem? If not, I think it's way too much micro not to warrant a major change.

 

[Opus]

You don't misunderstand me and I understand that what I described is doable in the game, at least to an extent. However the way air wings target each other, you have to constantly worry about loosing an entire wing if you don't check back regularly. Now, I'm not great at the air war aspect of the game, but I can't be the only one who find extremely tiring to have to cycle new wings into a unit of 4xINT/TAC or whatever just because one of the wings gets chewed up up and the other three escape almost unharmed. The result is that I have to ground three perfectly fit wings, manually remove the damaged one, manually add a fresh wing and lastly set up mission parameters again. During a campaign this will happen alot if you play as a major. I don't know if there is a smoother way to handle this problem? If not, I think it's way too much micro not to warrant a major change.

I know what you mean, I've have many times wondered where the hell my airforce went, just to find out that they were shot down because some stupid AI move.

But that's an AI-problem and the way to solve it is to improve the AI, not to replace the system. If the AI can't handle the current automated system, what makes you think that it could handle another one properly? And if it's improved so that it can handle it, then whats the need for a new system?

 

[Rudawitz]

@Opus
If we're talking about AI, I'm certainly out of my depth. I do think however, that the problem I mentioned applies to more than just AI controlled air forces. I can't control which wings will take damage in a dogfight over London, even if i set up the mission myself. I still have to monitor the battle and re-compose the unit afterwards, no?

 

[Opus]

There are a "reserve" mission that another unit can have. Havn't really used it for a long time, so idk if it works properly. It is supposed to replace units that are damaged I think, basicly, split your 4-wing stack in 2 (makeing it 2 stacks of 2 wings), place them at the same airfield with the same mission, and then have another stack of 2 in reserve, you should be more safe from total anhialation of your airforce by AI stupidity without having to constantly monitor your wings.

Should you be able to control wich wings will take damage in a dogfight? Why? You can control what wings that participate, sure, but witch one that gets damaged?

 

[Rudawitz]

I haven't been able to get the reserve mission to work though. I'm not advocating the ability to control battles in that way, I was only trying to make my point about the tedious micro management clear.

 

[208]

I posted my own thoughts on how to change the modelling of tactical aircraft in a separate thread a while back.

 

[Jos de trol]

for me the air component could be abstracted, but I'd like airplanes flying around where the airforce is being engated (needn't be actual units)

 

[Doctor Optimal]

[Snip: Moving bit about moving units through convoy routes to the thread about convoys.]

Awful, just awful. If you don´t get input from what is really happening you would just put into auto and don´t care.

Air wings and subs allow you to have a palpable input on the damage they are doing MUCH better than reading a lame ass report every day. "50 bombers and 50 fighters lost" yawn. Where? What they damaged? How much?

For a very silly analogy, it would be like playing a Sonic game where you order him to go to the end of the level and then it would say how many rings and how many enemies he killed. Sounds good to you? Because to me it sounds like crap.

It seems like you're looking for tactical-to-operational control in what is (supposed to be) an operational-to-strategic game. "Ordering Sonic to the end of the level" is very much what you're doing with land divisions, and at least the time scale for divisions is (less un-)realistic. Why should Land combat be so macro while Air is so micro (and in a way that doesn't really represent History that well)?

 

[agv]

good idea, air and sub warfare off the map please!

 

[Praetori]

Subs and planes are two completely different worlds and should by handled in completely different ways.

I'm no game developer so I can't really say what would work and not in the end but I can tell what bugs me with the current system in HOI3 and some things that I would love to see in one way or another.

Planes in HOI3 are abstracted to Wings/Group/Staffel consisting of one or more squadrons. All is fine and dandy with that IMO. That they handle like a ground unit in terms of movement and combat is not however due to the time-scale and province nature of the game. Send a Strategic bombing wing from UK to drop some bombs on some target in the Rühr area and the strangeness begins. Any combat intercepts will be in whichever province the bombers happens to pass but due to the high speed of airplanes (relative to the 1hr increments of in-game time) results in aborted intercepts and other strange behavior. Dropping a bomber squadron to 0,1 ORG and 50% strength before they reach target means nothing as they will still complete their mission and still drop as many bombs (ie causing full damage) as a full squadron would. If 1 out of 3 Squadrons are mauled on Monday the mission mechanics will still merrily send the entire force on a new bombing run on Tuesday potentially wiping out an entire squadron (including the ground crews, grounded aircraft/crew and assets back in Britain by means of magic?) while the wing itself just press on with the mission. This and the intercept and air-superiority mechanic causes massive micro and headaches no matter which side or nation you're playing.

I like the idea of having a separate "mode" for airforces but I don't want them off the map.
They need dedicated OOBs that can be tied into the rest of the OOB but not be dependent on Army HQs.
I like the ideas of tracking "strength" by number of mission-ready aircraft but then I'd want it to reflect the capacity and mission efficiency.
In order for the above to work you'd also need to track/train the aircrews (which would make for interesting choices with for example Germany in later war) and use them as "resources" when setting up and/or reinforcing existing squadrons.
I don't like squadrons disappearing without so much as a trace (shatter and ground them yes, remove them no, CAGs are a different story if the carrier is sunk and the same can be said of airbases overrun by groundforces although complete annihilation rarely happened during the war).

Let me order my bombers to attack enemy's fighter-manufacturing plants (abstracted by hitting their practicals in fighter-aircraft and tie that into reinforcements as well) or their railroads and rail-yards (abstracted by lowering supply throughput, movement and transport capacity of reinforcements).
Let me bomb their sub-pens and increase the time at port for their subs (potentially even sinking one at dock), let me cripple the Bismarck's speed/maneuvering with a single CAG squadron while also allowing for monster air-naval battles such as Guadalcanal and Midway to happen.
Give me the option to bomb London in an attempt to force Britain on it's knees and let my experienced aircrews suffer the consequences while the enemy airwings forces my submarines to operate far out in the Atlantic and my Battlecruisers to hide in Norwegian Fjords.
Let my CAS and my armor to work in close cooperation during Case Yellow by adding their firepower to the regiments breaking through at Sedan while also letting me disrupt the Soviet armored reserves behind enemy lines during Case Blue.
Let me send waves of night bombers during the long dark hours of winter to hamper the Germans at the Volga while the AI Luftwaffe owns the summer skies of '42.
Some of this can be done in HOI3 but all of it unfortunately requires microing for the wrong reasons and the AI cannot do any of it properly.

Subs is a completely different story and would require a whole thread on it's own.

 

[Hakello]

The current air combat model is pretty crap. Short engagements are horrible from a gameplay perspective, and 8 to 10 plane divisions acting like flying land units fighting over 1 tiny province is kinda odd. The solution given in this thread would solve this. But I'd take any change to the current model. Same for subs, they are pretty micro intensive to be used (and to counter). As germany this usually means in mp that while I'm bizy in France and don't have time to micro my subs they all get sunk by a bored UK that has plenty of time while he's holding a few french provinces. Trust me, it doesn't get better when the invasion of russia starts Any improvement to the naval model is great, and subs should fit into the new model, however that looks.

Oh. And while talking about the air model. Please implement a penalty for fighting above enemy territory for lost pilots, such a change would have a rather big impact on strategic decisions

 

[Opus]

[Snip: Moving bit about moving units through convoy routes to the thread about convoys.]



It seems like you're looking for tactical-to-operational control in what is (supposed to be) an operational-to-strategic game. "Ordering Sonic to the end of the level" is very much what you're doing with land divisions, and at least the time scale for divisions is (less un-)realistic. Why should Land combat be so macro while Air is so micro (and in a way that doesn't really represent History that well)?

I think the games really needs a level of tactial-to-operational control. Otherwise it would be "Administration of Iron IV - A WW2 burocracy game". Very realistic, but hardly fun.

And I don't really see the reason why one approach should exclude the other. Have stuff been done on a strategic scale, but make it possible to do stuff you self.

 

[jju_57]

This post is not about what should happen but instead is about what most likely WILL happen. yes I've consulted my crystal ball and do know the answers.

First off planes and subs will be handeled very differently. The whole concept of convoy raiding will be off map for the most part. What that means is the units don't appear on the map but you do select sea zones for your forces. Subs will be like tanks in that factories will produce them and they are then added to a pool of assets. Same goes for convoy ships, escorts and other surface ships you want to place there. And I bet things like convoy raiders will also be included.

In order not to make it too boring you have to pick various ports to base your units in. After all you can't base your u-boats in Kiel and expect to reach the south atlantic. Then you allocate your forces to sea zones that are in range. The AI handles the rest. The map or some report will give the details of your progress where you can change ports, sea zones, assets etc. BTW none of this is new to wargames and other WW2 based games used systems similiar to this.

Planes are a whole different animal. There will in fact be two different ways to handle air planes. One for strategic missions and the other for tactical ground attacks. Like tanks and subs you build planes and these are added to various air wings that you created.

These "wings" are based at airbases on the map. But like convoy raiding you allocate some wings to strategic warfare and pick regions to attack or defend. These 'battles" are not fought on the map but the results are. So factories in the regions can be damaged and planes int eh various wings lost or damaged.

But you also have control over the other planes and these will be part of the battle plans that were mentioned. This gives you more tactical control over some of your air assets.

 

[Wraith11B]

This might turn into a wall of text, but I'm going to try and keep it easy...

What are the few overall general missions aircraft do?
1) Reconnaissance (Strategic/Tactical)
2) Air Superiority
3) Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)*
4) Ground Attack
5) Close Air Support (different from ground attack)
6) Strategic Bombardment

Thus, since--and I'm reaching into the black on this one--we're getting an equipment-based game in 4, production lines produce individual aircraft. Individual aircraft will form squadrons as necessary, starting at 10 aircraft, up to 30. Once one squadron is done it's attached to a wing, under an air force. Squadron size is a strategic question... which affects the following.

Therefore, I'd assign them to an air force with a discreet areas; if no separate OOB is available, then we can assign them to the Theater/Army Group level. These HQs can have the aircraft they receive set at some sort of ratio, dependent on what missions you have set (think the spy missions in the latest variant of 3). Thus, if the theater for Poland doesn't need to run SEAD as much nor Strategic Bombardment, it won't receive those units, but it does need, say, the Air Superiority and Close Air Support, so it gets those.

The AI can task out the units to the subordinate commands via the battle planner (or the human can do it if they choose).

Thus, air missions aren't dependent on the "unit", but the airframe used. If you have lots of fighters, the enemy isn't going to be able to affect you or

-- I'd also have support/ground crew "units" (ala battalions) that are required to effectively run airfields. Thus, rebasing requires either a new ground crew or redeploying one already in existence. I might also consider building this alongside the squadron.

-- Another thing is that since air fields might be just that--fields--having terrain dictate what amount of aircraft can operate would be nice. Further, if the terrain is bad, the need to actually build an airfield would be required, requiring some thought on the part of the player.

*NOTE: SEAD might need some explaining: for me in this game, this is both attacking the AA and Radar as well as enemy air units running air superiority over their owned territory.