I say make AA more powerful, so you have an incentive to build it. But bombers are fine the way they are - it's very simple to chase them off with interceptors.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Shahed said:
That it acheives the aim is one thing, but the way it does it is wrong.
Air power IS too deadly, far out of historical proportion. Vanilla 1.2 might have been too weak, but they overcorrected to make it "useful".
Air power should be a battle winner, not a unit killer. They need to roll air power back and then increase it incrementally until it hits that right balance. Having it act as a unit killer rather than a support wing that greatly increases a nation's ability to win battles is wrong. Period. Air is imbalanced as it is. It is seriously possible to have a strategy in which your land forces are a support wing to your air force, simply having the job of dislodging the enemy so that the aircraft can get to them. That's historically incorrect, and it doesn't model the relationship between air and ground accurately at all.
mld0806 said:
My favourite option is to roll together Ground Attack and Interdiction, and reduce the effectiveness of both.
mld0806 said:
Hey that's my strategy! It's really quite ridiculous, but I've had it up to here with having to create "houserules" for each and every abnormality that arises. Houserules are for boardgames, not video games.
What they need to do is to let us order our bombers to bomb a certain province. In 1.2 I found airpower useless because AI chose targets other than ones I wanted to bomb. It was quite ridiculous when while needed to devastate enemy infrastructure before an attack my bombers would instead attack infrastructure in another province behind enemy lines. Yes, that other province has less units and AA, but I do not want my bombers to save themselves. I want them to SUPPORT my ARMY.
As of now, airforce is a poor army support for the exact same reason. I cannot use logistical strikes because AI choses a province behind enemy lines - one that I cannot possibly attack with land forces - while enemy defensive line, ignored because it is better defended that interior, is ignored and infrastructure there stays at maximum. True, there are EXCEPTIONS to this rule when airforce HAPPENS to support my troops, but so far it has been coin flips... Just give us an potion to turn that goddamn airforce AI off so that we could bomb where we actualy need to bomb.
What is left of airforce is unit killing ability. As mld0806 has said, that is unrealistic. Let us use airforce for support and tone down ground attack efficiency.
Also, make land units do more damage to enemy bombers. So far, my CAS did not suffer any noticeable losses while bombing a 9-division stack where 4 units had AA brigades attached!
As of now, airforce is a poor army support for the exact same reason. I cannot use logistical strikes because AI choses a province behind enemy lines - one that I cannot possibly attack with land forces - while enemy defensive line, ignored because it is better defended that interior, is ignored and infrastructure there stays at maximum. True, there are EXCEPTIONS to this rule when airforce HAPPENS to support my troops, but so far it has been coin flips... Just give us an potion to turn that goddamn airforce AI off so that we could bomb where we actualy need to bomb.
What is left of airforce is unit killing ability. As mld0806 has said, that is unrealistic. Let us use airforce for support and tone down ground attack efficiency.
Also, make land units do more damage to enemy bombers. So far, my CAS did not suffer any noticeable losses while bombing a 9-division stack where 4 units had AA brigades attached!
TheLand said:
The only problem with this is that, by combining ground attack and interdiction effects into one, you exacerbate the situaiton. As it stands, retreating enemies take interdiction damage to keep their org low so they won't shoot back and ground attack damage from air units hitting their strength. The combination of the two leads to high casualties to the ground units and low casualties to the air units. Combining the two, however, solves nothing. Now, instead of having some on Interdiction to keep org low and some on ground attack to inflict damage, you just have them ALL on the new mission. Even if the effectiveness of each half is cut in 1/2, the combination is just as strong as it stands now.
NikkTheTrick said:
Province specific targeting outside of close air support is debatably historical. On the strategic level, individual targets were not named, and indeed air force theorists of the time found, in North Africa, that too much strategic level control of air forces diluted their effectiveness, which is why the Allies ended up separating out their air commands.
Historically, Ike didn't say, "Bomb this factory here." He said, "Bomb the industrial capacity of the Rhur Valley into rubble," and the Eight Air Force command did the planning and execution of the actual missions.
Indeed, there was some coordination of preparatory strikes between the ground forces and air forces, but that would call for one of three things. A) The unhistorically high level of direct command of air forces (and the increased micromanagement that goes therein) or B) The air AI to be precient about what your plans are (we're quite a ways from that, thank goodness....right, Dave?) or C) The air AI being able to plan it's attacks based on orders given to units in the future.
Option C is the one I'd like to see. That way you could give units orders to attack in 7 days at dawn, and the AI would see that you have offensive operations planned for X province, and target it's attacks on that province. As it stands, you can get much the same effect from a ground support role if you're involved in combat when you give the orders, but as you say it doesn't help much for preparatory work.
As far as more direct coordination goes, it wasn't until the 1970s that a direct, lower level, full time air liason was part of unit TOE in the US armed forces. Indeed, there were Luftwaffe liasons attached to ground forces, but this all wraps up into close air support, which is already pretty well modeled with the air units supporting active combats with priority. Other than that, it was a much more dilute operation, at least when looked at from the top down as in the chair we sit in when we command in HOI2.
As far as your last complaint goes, that's a function of the combat model. It's not that land units can't damage aircraft, it's that when the units are retreating they're at such low organization (kept that way by interdiction, if you're smart) that the don't shoot back very often, if at all. With the way things work right now, the strength losses they take while they aren't shooting back are so high that even if they do rise enough in org to start returning fire, the damage they do is scaled down by those strength losses. The more they're bombed, the less of a threat they become. If you hurt them enough before they reorg enough, they're no threat at all.
I agree that strategic bombing did not involve certain provinces, but logistical strikes did.
I understand that bombers can make a mistake and bomb a different region, but they will not keep making the same mistake over and over again. Compared to current system, I would rather have my bombers choose their target province randomly since in that case my target province will recieve at least some damage. The option C you have offered looks like a good solution. Alas, it is not in the game...
When it comes to CAS, specific province targeting, in my opinion, absolutely needs to be implemented for a variety of reasons:
First of all, CAS operated over (relatively) short ranges and unlike STR they would not "drift" hundreds of kilometers from their target.
Second, the very nature of CAS requires bombing of certain units. This is especialy true with intrediction strikes. Yes, CAS will bomb whoever I tell them once the combet had started, but by that time the combat would have already went for hours, resulting in my attacking forces sustaining considerable org losses. This is especialy hurtful for low-org doctrines.
Third, as of now CAS can be sent for missions hundreds of kilometers beyond their range. In areas with large provinces, one can send CAS to a province in another area, say 200 km away, and CAS will reach any province in that area, even if it is 1000 km away. This is grossly unrealistic and is arguably an exploit.
As for my complaint about bomber losses, I was talking about a case where a stack of my 4 CAS was performing ground attack on a fully organized stack of 9 divisions, 4 of which had AA brigades attached (no provincial AA). After couple of days of bombing, all my CAS were at 100 strength! Yes, they did not do too much damage to enemy troops, but they have gained experience. As of now, it is an exploit where one canorder his CAS to bomb some dug in divisions, resulting in 100 experience wings.
I understand that bombers can make a mistake and bomb a different region, but they will not keep making the same mistake over and over again. Compared to current system, I would rather have my bombers choose their target province randomly since in that case my target province will recieve at least some damage. The option C you have offered looks like a good solution. Alas, it is not in the game...
When it comes to CAS, specific province targeting, in my opinion, absolutely needs to be implemented for a variety of reasons:
First of all, CAS operated over (relatively) short ranges and unlike STR they would not "drift" hundreds of kilometers from their target.
Second, the very nature of CAS requires bombing of certain units. This is especialy true with intrediction strikes. Yes, CAS will bomb whoever I tell them once the combet had started, but by that time the combat would have already went for hours, resulting in my attacking forces sustaining considerable org losses. This is especialy hurtful for low-org doctrines.
Third, as of now CAS can be sent for missions hundreds of kilometers beyond their range. In areas with large provinces, one can send CAS to a province in another area, say 200 km away, and CAS will reach any province in that area, even if it is 1000 km away. This is grossly unrealistic and is arguably an exploit.
As for my complaint about bomber losses, I was talking about a case where a stack of my 4 CAS was performing ground attack on a fully organized stack of 9 divisions, 4 of which had AA brigades attached (no provincial AA). After couple of days of bombing, all my CAS were at 100 strength! Yes, they did not do too much damage to enemy troops, but they have gained experience. As of now, it is an exploit where one canorder his CAS to bomb some dug in divisions, resulting in 100 experience wings.
NikkTheTrick said:
Note that I didn't use the "bombers got lost" argument, as that is, IMHO, a bullshit argument at best.
However, Logistical Strike isn't as targeted as you would think. This is the bombing of bridges and railyards. You wouldn't have strikes day after day, week after week affecting these things from the same area. Indeed, there were concentrated efforts against certain "key" bridges and railyards, but those also took into account loss estimates much the same way the AI does now. Option C, which would be better than specific province targeting, would be the best way to model this, though.As far as the dynamics of CAS, yes the way range works is a bit unrealistic. However, the direct attack you speak of is only modeled in combat, as without that there were no FAC to direct the bombing, and CAS were under many of the strictures of any other interdiction mission, which is patrol the area and attack anything that moves. Narrow targeting outside of combat, where you might have calls for fire support, isn't quite right. Not quite wrong, either, which is why I say it's debatable.
NikkTheTrick said:
Agree, if this is the case then it should be looked at.
I just played a game as the Soviets.
I had 100 divisions when the Germans invaded in 41 and over 50 CAS.
By the time the Germans pushed up to Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad they had essentially no divisions left on the front and were sending stragglers in.
I'd say airpower is pretty powerful yes.
I had 100 divisions when the Germans invaded in 41 and over 50 CAS.
By the time the Germans pushed up to Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad they had essentially no divisions left on the front and were sending stragglers in.
I'd say airpower is pretty powerful yes.
I think
I think that it gives a more realistic aproach of what was about having one airfield close enough to the combat cene, right?
Now my Arm and Mot divisions are alwais aiming to get those airfields as faster as possible!
As it was in the past. Like sometimes they did airbone assaults to imobilaize the countrys airforce.
I think its cool. Just maybe too powerful. Im distroying 41 infantry divisions very easly, with 7 tac bombers, full upgraded and 100 of expirience, and full technology. But i mean only when the units are moving or they are retreating or have no Org at all. I mean they do no harm to units that are dug in. But they are way too powerfull against units retreating.
Just be carefull to dont tone it down too drasticly, other wise it will make a bad deal to research any bomber.
Ps: I managed to almost destroy complitely one third of the 300 Red Army, only withmy Tac bombers...
I think that it gives a more realistic aproach of what was about having one airfield close enough to the combat cene, right?
Now my Arm and Mot divisions are alwais aiming to get those airfields as faster as possible!
As it was in the past. Like sometimes they did airbone assaults to imobilaize the countrys airforce.
I think its cool. Just maybe too powerful. Im distroying 41 infantry divisions very easly, with 7 tac bombers, full upgraded and 100 of expirience, and full technology. But i mean only when the units are moving or they are retreating or have no Org at all. I mean they do no harm to units that are dug in. But they are way too powerfull against units retreating.
Just be carefull to dont tone it down too drasticly, other wise it will make a bad deal to research any bomber.
Ps: I managed to almost destroy complitely one third of the 300 Red Army, only withmy Tac bombers...
HOLY CRAP
I take back my statements about bombers being fine - at least, naval bombers.
In the time it took me to move from a province, they'd killed 2 Super Heavies and 1 CV, plus 3 screens. Very annoying. I can't really see any kind of bomber being able to sink that amount in a few hours.
I take back my statements about bombers being fine - at least, naval bombers.
In the time it took me to move from a province, they'd killed 2 Super Heavies and 1 CV, plus 3 screens. Very annoying. I can't really see any kind of bomber being able to sink that amount in a few hours.
mld0806 said:
You could reduce the effectiveness by more than half. Also, the damage done by successful hits can be varied between types of unit.
TheLand said:
That would bring it back to almost 1.2 levels...at which point, why not just go back to 1.2, build bombers in the numbers we see now, use them in both missions simultaneously like they are now, and viola...
mld0806 said:
I'm sure there is a happy medium that can be struck between uber-powerful and uber-nerfed.
My other cunning idea is to make damage from air attack proportional to unit strength... a full-strength armoured division on the move is a sitting duck for 400 bombers, a battered remnant is more difficult to target from the air.
Airpower does seem overpowered, especially CAS. Its noticable now that my strategy does seems to involve the army supporting the air force rathter then the other way round.
On the other hand it is nice that air power is important, in game terms aircraft are expensive and did seem like a bit of a waste in previous versions. I now care about air cover and i care about capturing and denying enemy airfields, previously i couldnt care a whit about where they were or if i just captured them or not.
We're still looking for a happy medium i think.
On the other hand it is nice that air power is important, in game terms aircraft are expensive and did seem like a bit of a waste in previous versions. I now care about air cover and i care about capturing and denying enemy airfields, previously i couldnt care a whit about where they were or if i just captured them or not.
We're still looking for a happy medium i think.
TheLand said:
this is a very good idea. i stated this allready in another thread, but the same should be applied to the number of divisions per province.
now there are 3 main problems:
1. bombers do much more damage to smaller stacks than to larger stacks. a stack of 6 takes nearly no damage when a stack of 3 looses one division after the other. but in reality more divisions (or like you intend division strenght) means more targets which means more damage.
2. bombers tend to attack the smallest weakest defended stack, in combination with 1. even more deadly. but totally unrealistic because it makes more sense to weaken those 12 divisions forming for attack than those single division one province behind. especially if 50 divisions are massed to take moscow and the soviet air fleet is bombing 3 divisions on the krim
3. bombers tend to destroy one division after the other, not doing equal damage to all divisions in the province
in my current german game italy is winning in africa because my tacs operating from greece are destroying ANY british division in north africa during 2 days
the other problems (not so drastic) are:
4. soft attack values are higher than hard attack values. in reality bombers were used mainly to destroy vehicles or buildings whatever. the use against soldiers was more supression than destroying
5. like mentioned before, bombers (especially cas) take too less damage from ground fire
6. fighters cannot follow the advance (if playing an offensive campaign) to protect your ground forces. when my tanks captured an airfield during barbarossa, and i rebased my fighters, the loosed nearly all of their org. when the regained org to protect my ground forces, i had to rebase them again because my land forces are again out of range.
all in all, the airforce is not overpowered, but the modifiers for stacking and the choosing of targets should be reworked completly
Bombers are way too strong...
Allied bombers put my (german) IC from 220 down to 100 in about a month or 2. I was not unprepared and had enforced Static AI in many provinces since the 36...
The game was lost so I took Kriegsmarine out of the harbour as an experiment (2 Carriers, 6 Battleships, and 12 other vessels). It was bombed to pieces...
Allied bombers put my (german) IC from 220 down to 100 in about a month or 2. I was not unprepared and had enforced Static AI in many provinces since the 36...
The game was lost so I took Kriegsmarine out of the harbour as an experiment (2 Carriers, 6 Battleships, and 12 other vessels). It was bombed to pieces...