CAS and Naval production

[bigredsnake]

I am posting this more for us on the SP side, honestly you can just change settings for MP so whatever for them.

CAS should not dominate SP...period. A stuka bomber, A-20, Typhoon, etc without air superiority no matter how many they have should be sliced up by fighters and heavy fighters. I think some of that is the air battles need to be far more violent. Even if say I throw 3000 vs the AIs 1000 they lose like 10 a day. It needs to be significant to reflect how air superiority actually works. I'd suggest the losing attrition be walked up to 10x what it is now to more accurately reflect an airforce winning over another. On the other side planes need to be set to their real crew sizes rather than 20 men all dying when one Spitfire bites it especially since it is a 1 plane in game equals 1 actual plane mindset.

CAS without air superiority should be suicidal like 10 to 1 losses of equal sized CAS to Fighters. Tac bombers should be around 75% without support, and Strat about 50%. This would get air battles closer to reality mind you the battle for Britain was not the entirety of the war.

As for Naval the reason cruisers are the meta is because BBs and CVs take unrealistically long to build. Their production needs to shoot up massively once a war begins possibly at a much higher cost to resources to reflect why the Allies out produced the Axis. Let's be honest researching a BB or CV tech beyond 1940 is only useful if you plan on playing past a traditional war end and even moreso for 1944. The heavies need to be less susceptible to light attack and be more susceptible. Even a production efficiency would be useful just something to start getting the era closer to a true reflection of what it was not mere gimmicks

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

On the other side planes need to be set to their real crew sizes rather than 20 men all dying when one Spitfire bites it

There are no manpower losses in airwar.

They compensated that with ship personnel aboard (which is mortal) going through the roof, though. Discard logic and get HoI4 (c) bitmode

 

[Kanitatlan]

You need to appreciate that CAS is a catch all for a variety of aircraft types and whilst the German CAS is dominated by Ju87 dive bombers the British have Typhoon and Tempest which would be far from sitting ducks for fighters. The real issue is being misled by the aircraft types used to represent CAS. Arguably the mistake is having Ju87 for CAS I and II when Fw190 models became the backbone of German ground attack in the East.

Secondly, air losses are somewhat low because the designers scaled aircraft capabilities to reflect serviceability and realistic mission cycles. This means that when you think you have 3,000 aircraft running a continuous mission cycle there are really only a fraction of these operating at one time. This does have the misleading effect that there are never any peak days when everyone was fresh and the whole air fleet takes part.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I largely agree with your comments on air lethality. I'm not really sure what you're saying with regards to the navy to comment on it.

planes need to be set to their real crew sizes rather than 20 men all dying when one Spitfire bites it

No one actually dies when a plane is shot down.

As for Naval the reason cruisers are the meta is because BBs and CVs take unrealistically long to build.

BB and CV time to build are by all estimations myself and others have made, accurate. The reason people tend not to build them is that the role the BB/BC are intended to fill, is often better filled by CA. I haven't done or seen any estimations for time to build/cost of CA, but the gamey designs MTG ship designer allow us to make have practically no historical basis, so there isn't really a comparison to be formed.

 

[Kanitatlan]

As for Naval the reason cruisers are the meta is because BBs and CVs take unrealistically long to build.

I think the real reason BB and CV are disadvantaged is because the game doesn't really allow them the ability to simply avoid the enemy closing distance with them. This is more significant for CVs which could do a good job of staying away from enemy task forces for a long period of time as long as they had proper observation of where they were. It is of less significance for BB/BC as effective engagement ranges where, at least early war, determined by fire control rather than gun range. Any BB trying to stay out of CA range wouldn't hit anything. Once close enough to hit you are close enough for light ships to make a concerted torpedo run in your general direction.

I have looked in the past at modelling BB versus CL at a tactical level and it shows that BBs where significantly vulnerable to flanking manoeuvres resulting in torpedo attack from multiple directions in any situation other than perfect visibility. I think the reality is that the BB role is only relevant if you are in a big gun battle and the invention of the torpedo made BBs obsolete even before aircraft went and did the same. The truth is that line of battle of dreadnoughts has never really been tested as even at the battle of Jutland it was in effect decided by a torpedo attack.

 

[Happy Trigger]

I am posting this more for us on the SP side, honestly you can just change settings for MP so whatever for them.

CAS should not dominate SP...period. A stuka bomber, A-20, Typhoon, etc without air superiority no matter how many they have should be sliced up by fighters and heavy fighters. I think some of that is the air battles need to be far more violent. Even if say I throw 3000 vs the AIs 1000 they lose like 10 a day. It needs to be significant to reflect how air superiority actually works. I'd suggest the losing attrition be walked up to 10x what it is now to more accurately reflect an airforce winning over another. On the other side planes need to be set to their real crew sizes rather than 20 men all dying when one Spitfire bites it especially since it is a 1 plane in game equals 1 actual plane mindset.

CAS without air superiority should be suicidal like 10 to 1 losses of equal sized CAS to Fighters. Tac bombers should be around 75% without support, and Strat about 50%. This would get air battles closer to reality mind you the battle for Britain was not the entirety of the war.

As for Naval the reason cruisers are the meta is because BBs and CVs take unrealistically long to build. Their production needs to shoot up massively once a war begins possibly at a much higher cost to resources to reflect why the Allies out produced the Axis. Let's be honest researching a BB or CV tech beyond 1940 is only useful if you plan on playing past a traditional war end and even moreso for 1944. The heavies need to be less susceptible to light attack and be more susceptible. Even a production efficiency would be useful just something to start getting the era closer to a true reflection of what it was not mere gimmicks

The problem with low fatality rate in air fights could be easily solved if the fighters air attack were increased. This alone would increase CAS and Bomber fatality.

The second thing that could be done is add a pilot-pool. So, nobody would be able to have more than X number (% of total population) of aircrafts flying every time. Nations with more population, would have a larger pool, ending air controllers.

Reliability could be removed from aircrafts, adding armor instead. Armor would be meant to increase the chance of survival your pilot have in case of shot-down/reduce the damage done by fighters. Armor, Range and Weapons upgrade (would make your aircraft slow) X Engine upgrades.

 

[Kanitatlan]

The problem with low fatality rate in air fights could be easily solved if the fighters air attack were increased. This alone would increase CAS and Bomber fatality.

As I have noted before, Paradox explained when the current air system was implemented that losses during air operations where scaled to reflect the general level of availability and serviceability of air units for missions. This means that in that situation where you think you have 2,000 fighters flying air superiority it is really a fraction of this number at any one time. I think this is misleading, which it clearly is given the frequency of comments about low losses, and suggested this suggestion for modifying air mission efficiency to give a much more realistic appearance and pattern to air operations.

 

[aletoledo]

Regarding the naval meta, I was going to argue that it's not construction time, but I suppose it actually is the problem in a roundabout manner. Construction time is really NIC cost and not necessarily the game time for them to pop out. Even if they changed the number of allowed dockyards from 5 to 10, the NIC cost is too high, despite their reduced time to be produced. Therefore the whole issue is NIC cost, since BBs can't compete against the cheaper cruisers. BBs have their disadvantages already (i.e. speed & visibility), so compounding them with higher costs is just adding insult to injury.

I doubt the developers will ever change this, because changing the cost of the hulls is easily done with a mod. I suppose it would be nice if everyone agreed that a cost reduction to BBs would solve the problem, but I doubt the developers have the inclination to try to find the right number to balance BBs against CAs.

 

[Corpse Fool]

but I doubt the developers have the inclination to try to find the right number to balance BBs against CAs.

You should see the non-MTG ship stats. Like how super heavies 2's have around half the armour of super heavy 1's.