Hmm....
1.06b. My 12 fighters under AM Goering (can lead 12 air units!) get -80% "stacking penalty" during battle. Why?
1.06b. My 12 fighters under AM Goering (can lead 12 air units!) get -80% "stacking penalty" during battle. Why?
-
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.
Under 1.06b large stacks of fighters (over four) get a penalty on their attack values, and I think it is progressive (meaning the more fighters that you have over four, the larger the penalty).
It was put in to attempt to cut down on one or two large stacks of fighters just demolishing a players air force in MP, if I know what I'm talking about....
Does anyone know if divebombers are included in this penalty?
It was put in to attempt to cut down on one or two large stacks of fighters just demolishing a players air force in MP, if I know what I'm talking about....
Does anyone know if divebombers are included in this penalty?
orko said:
All Air , IIRC.
But i think this was primary not for MP, because a human can recact on big stacks. I think this is for SP, because AI never had a chance in Airwar.
People really should starting reading the patch readmes...Oh, and please keep the title informative hmm?
Inbrainsane said:
I have to disagree with that statement. In my current game I just had a stack of 12 English fighters fly across occuppied France and into Germany to pummel a four stack of aircraft. I was playing at Fast speed and by the time I read the message and hit pause three bombers and a ME 109 squadron were decimated. This in spite of the English air armada crossing over three different AA equipped provinces which seemed to have no effect. And yes I had troops in the provinces in question so my level 3 AA should have knocked back the English to some extent.
I'm playing 1.06 normal/normal and believe me the AI airforce is not a detriment for the Allies.
The migrating British fighterstack is indeed very annoying. I'm beginning to think it's best to equip units south of Antwerpen with nightfighters instead of superior tacticians, since the British have a lot of them and my units are taking a lot of damage at night. Alternatively, you could leave a flightpath open until the US enters the war and they start their "Shock and Awe" campaign(Aka, nuke your allies).rommel7 said:
Robert Koop said:
There is a problem with the fighter stack penalty itself,night air combat penalty works strange(i think its a reported bug)and above all AA efficiency has droped since the latest patch.
No, this change came about after Hortlund played an MP game and discovered how lethal stacks of 12 fighters were. Human players may not get enough time to react because air battles are so fast and furious, especially if the clock is running at normal and the auto-repeat option is used. And it can be difficult to pull the defending planes out because of the silly way that they retreat from from their base and then return to it.Inbrainsane said:
Andrew
Well I personally like this new system better... just invaded the US with Germany (45), sent 2 groups of 3 fighers each (total of 6), met a big stack of american fighters.. They knocked the shit out of me, had a look at their stats, they were basically the same as mine so the new penalty works as intended I would say.
FWIW, I wouldn't mind this penalty if it had some historical basis. It doesn't. The allies frequently had thousands of planes in the air. (D-Day is an easy example) This is just another attempt to fix the broken AI (much like the naval stacking rules) without actually FIXING THE BROKEN AI. What really galls me about this is it makes the situation worse. The AI is not smart enough to reduce it's stacks of fighters, and now I can wipe them out even easier because of this rule. Prior to this, I had to contend withe those huge British fighter stacks making sweeps across my teritory on their way back and forth to Egypt. Not anymore...
Colonel Warden said:
Yeah...that's a real win. Why not just remove the penalty? It's a bad idea. I haven't played C yet, but my guess is it's going to be worse in SP mode.
Because people would complain about the use of über 12-stacks of fighters. These make air warfare too intense and brutal, especially in multiplayer. Dropping the penalty altogether was one of the options considered for 1.06c but the current fix was chosen instead.rogers said:
Andrew
Colonel Warden said:
Fine...historically this is the tactic that was used...Read about the battle of Britain. The Germans used great numbers of planes, and the English countered with just enough planes to disrupt the attack, and better technology to support their units. There's no historical basis for this penalty, and making it apply *only* to the human, who can be outnumbered three to one is wrong.
I don't recall many air battles with 1200 planes per side.
Anyway, I think that this is a good thing, though I'd much rather see the penalty start at 4 and not at 5, though with 5% instead of 10%, creates versatile stacks but still gives a high penalty. In addition I don't think bombers should count towards the limit, this way you could stack some fighters with your bombers and have a bit less of a headache micro-managing. Afterall, the bombers are just flying straight, they do nothing but do that and die, valiant if not the safest life.
Heck, then AA can be put back to normal, I love my AA, I loves it!
Anyway, I think that this is a good thing, though I'd much rather see the penalty start at 4 and not at 5, though with 5% instead of 10%, creates versatile stacks but still gives a high penalty. In addition I don't think bombers should count towards the limit, this way you could stack some fighters with your bombers and have a bit less of a headache micro-managing. Afterall, the bombers are just flying straight, they do nothing but do that and die, valiant if not the safest life.
Heck, then AA can be put back to normal, I love my AA, I loves it!
jgbaxter said:
Weather permitting the Allies often had thousands of planes in the air every day during the last year of the war. Consider the number of fighters and bombers in just one single raid in that year. Don't forget the huge numbers of planes and ships that supported the D-Day invasion.
I addition, take a look at the Pacific. I think the Japanese lost more than 400 planes in a single attack on the US fleet off of Manilla.
When large numbers of planes were available, they were used. There is no historical reason for this penalty.
The problem is the AI, and these "fixes" still don't solve that problem.
I'm not understanding you. Your example is a case where large numbers of planes were ineffective against a smaller number and that's what the penalty achieves.rogers said:
The AI exemption is an implementation issue not a historical one as neither side was using computers to control their units.
Andrew
Suggesting that UK won the battle of Britain because they had less planes is tottaly wrong and if this is an argument for the penalty it only proves how wrong wqas that from the beggining.
Better C3I(radar)/sorter fly time till combat for brits/bad leadership commands in critical moments are some of the reasons for UK victory in this air combat.Less planes have nothing to do with it.
Better C3I(radar)/sorter fly time till combat for brits/bad leadership commands in critical moments are some of the reasons for UK victory in this air combat.Less planes have nothing to do with it.
Colonel Warden said:
In the battle of Britain the English won due to a variety of reasons. It's probably safe to say that had the English tried to gain air superiority over german territory while being outnumbered, they would have lost. You'll note this was one reason that night bombing was so "popular".
Colonel Warden said:
I understand that...it's a broken implimetntation though. If you want to give the AI a bonus, at least the bonus should make some sense and have some historical basis. There is no historical basis for not using large fighter stacks.