Fighters don't attack planes passing trough.

[BarrosRodrigues]

It sounds like this is going to remove one of the big micro managment issues of HOI3. More like a game and less like a job

Actually it is going in the opposite direction in all relevant accounts; it will be way more micro intensive, less realistic and not engaging/immersive not even by a little bit. In HOI III if you did not like to micro the air force you could simply tell your fighters/bombers to work in a radius (up to their max range) from their airbase. After putting a couple of wings of every type in reserve that was it. Almost no micro but still effective if the placement of the aircraft was good.

 

[kalauer]

Question: Is there a final list or details of what air missions and options/priorities will be available? I haven't seen any details since the old Air Combat DD. Is this something that's a work in progress? There are probably lots of "good and bad" in the way air war is being abstracted, but it's hard to judge without the final details.

I apologize if I've missed that in this very, very long thread. I confess that I haven't read every single post...

In the WWW, we saw (I guess) all missions:
fighters: air superiority (attacks everything, fighters are priority); interception(attacks non-fighters)
tactical Bombers: port strike (attacking fleets in port; unclear whether actual ports are destroyed too);strategic bombing(bomb industry, infrastructure,buildings), Close air Support (assist own troops in battle)
Support planes: as tactical but naval strike(attack ships in area) instead of port strike
strategic bomber: well, strategic bombing only (and the occasional supply of embargoed cities in east-Germany)

I am not aware of other missions (or plane types that might have substantial different ones; carrier planes may act like "support"?). Missed something?

Some concepts have been explained in the DD7 and in the wiki. Important for this Topic seem "coverage" and "detection", at least that's my theory how to interpret this. There are some posts here about it, you may search for this keywords (in #344, I blubbered a litle bit about it ).

 

[CrasherZZ]

In the WWW, we saw (I guess) all missions:
fighters: air superiority (attacks everything, fighters are priority); interception(attacks non-fighters)
tactical Bombers: port strike (attacking fleets in port; unclear whether actual ports are destroyed too);strategic bombing(bomb industry, infrastructure,buildings), Close air Support (assist own troops in battle)
Support planes: as tactical but naval strike(attack ships in area) instead of port strike
strategic bomber: well, strategic bombing only (and the occasional supply of embargoed cities in east-Germany)

I am not aware of other missions (or plane types that might have substantial different ones; carrier planes may act like "support"?). Missed something?

Some concepts have been explained in the DD7 and in the wiki. Important for this Topic seem "coverage" and "detection", at least that's my theory how to interpret this. There are some posts here about it, you may search for this keywords (in #344, I blubbered a litle bit about it ).

Thanks a bunch. I see that it is yet too vague to evaluate if there are some "saving graces" to offset the teleporting bombers problem. Maybe some code from Stellaris accidentally (or purposely?) got copied into HOI4? You know, wormholes, and such...

To be fair, though, automation of CAS missions, integrated automagically with ground combat could be pretty nice. I would like to see exactly what options are available on the various missions before condemning the whole air combat system. Not having to micromanage specific air units and commanders is good too.

Another DD or WWW focusing on it would be great.

 

[melkor88]

To be honest, I am not sure eitherway, but I think I will wait and try it out before worrying about it.

 

[Winzerer]

Hi everybody, I have been lurking around this forum for a while and have especially followed this thread. Teleporting bombers really seem to put the defender at some disadvantage, especially in the later game with higher ranges of the airplanes. The defender has to spread out his fighters in order to counter deep strikes whereas the attacker can concentrate his bomber force.

Would it be a solution to give fighters - and only fighters - an automatic secondary "interception" mission inside their home air region additionally to their primary air mission in the assigned air region?

This way a British fighter group stationed in Southern England could have the primary mission to intercept German bombers attacking the British fleet in the Channel. If there are no bombers attacking ships in the Channel but instead are bombing factories in Southern England the mentioned British fighter group would automatically join the defence above their airfields, which another fighter group might already have as their primary mission.

This would even the odds for the defender. What do you think?

 

[kalauer]

Thanks a bunch. I see that it is yet too vague to evaluate if there are some "saving graces" to offset the teleporting bombers problem. Maybe some code from Stellaris accidentally (or purposely?) got copied into HOI4? You know, wormholes, and such...

To be fair, though, automation of CAS missions, integrated automagically with ground combat could be pretty nice. I would like to see exactly what options are available on the various missions before condemning the whole air combat system. Not having to micromanage specific air units and commanders is good too.

Another DD or WWW focusing on it would be great.

We had a reply by podcat stating there is no "path tracking". This, if interpreted strictly, means the bombers indeed teleport, so all fighters that are not in the target region are totally ignored.

 

[Denkt]

Yes and no: While the game don't do any path tracking, it do make operational range more important then in previous versions as range no longer only mean if you can reach something or not but how effective your aircrafts can operate. The futher from your airfield your aircrafts operate the worse they will do so the enemy don't need many fighters in deep regions because your bombers will be very ineffective and probably take heavy casulties.

 

[CrasherZZ]

We had a reply by podcat stating there is no "path tracking". This, if interpreted strictly, means the bombers indeed teleport, so all fighters that are not in the target region are totally ignored.

That confirms it - they are reusing the Stellaris code to control air missions in HOI4 but they aren't letting us choose between warp drives, hyperlanes, or wormholes to send the bombers to the target star, uh, I mean region. That's less micromanagment...

 

[CrasherZZ]

The futher from your airfield your aircrafts operate the worse they will do so the enemy don't need many fighters in deep regions because your bombers will be very ineffective and probably take heavy casulties.

That can actually make up for the lack of fighter interception through the intervening regions. Maybe some of us can live with that?

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

The futher from your airfield your aircrafts operate the worse they will do so the enemy don't need many fighters in deep regions because your bombers will be very ineffective and probably take heavy casulties.

That can actually make up for the lack of fighter interception through the intervening regions. Maybe some of us can live with that?

So the bombers payload and weponry will become less deadly simply because they are further away from their home air base? Yes let us make the air warfare look even sillier.

just like in EU IV, a bunch of rules will attempt to "fix" it and will make the game look even sillier whenever they defy plausibility and sometimes even all laws of science.

 

[Invictus5966]

So the bombers payload and weponry will become less deadly simply because they are further away from their home air base? Yes let us make the air warfare look even sillier.

Actually they could carry more fuel and less bombs. Just look up the Doolittle raid.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Actually they could carry more fuel and less bombs. Just look up the Doolittle raid.

The Doolittle raid was well beyond the range of the B25s so they modified the planes to reach the target, I understand your point but that is not what we are discussing here. Here we are discussing about missions within the aircraft range without any of those special modifications.

 

[Ksyr]

Yeah, send all your fighters to the English Channel or, better yet, over England itself so their planes cant reach Germany or even take off. Oh, wait, nvm - their planes dont need to actually fly past yours because they simply teleport directly to where they want to be. I hope youre checking every single air zone because their bombers could be anywhere. That sounds like a lot less micro than simply assigning all your fighters to 'air intercept' over the English Channel.

Now you only have to defend a few air regions so yes, it is less micro. If you only defend the channel then the enemy could cross while it is still dark and then have no air opposition over the target area. Thats a bit silly if you ask me.

 

[Ksyr]

The Doolittle raid was well beyond the range of the B25s so they modified the planes to reach the target, I understand your point but that is not what we are discussing here. Here we are discussing about missions within the aircraft range without any of those special modifications.

Are you sure you are discussing missions within the aircraft range? I thought they got penalties when they couldn't cover the entire region. Did I miss something?

 

[Aodhan_]

Now you only have to defend a few air regions so yes, it is less micro. If you only defend the channel then the enemy could cross while it is still dark and then have no air opposition over the target area. Thats a bit silly if you ask me.

No you will have to defend all your regions, because you don't know where the bombers are teleporting too.

 

[Ksyr]

No you will have to defend all your regions, because you don't know where the bombers are teleporting too.

The air regions are large so for Germany All=3 according to Podcat. I don't remember the French and British regions, but isn't that like two regions each? When you use the word "all" you give off the wrong impression.

 

[Mevsrei]

The air regions are large so for Germany All=3 according to Podcat. I don't remember the French and British regions, but isn't that like two regions each? When you use the word "all" you give off the wrong impression.

So there is never occupation?
If you conquered half of europe you have definitelly more than 2 or 3 air regions to defend, so "all" is the correct term to use.
There is no wrong impression.

Lets say every big country in europe has 2 air regions:
Germany starts with 2.
Occupied France adds 2.
Occupied polland adds 2.
Austria adds 1.
UK is the enemy and can, at this point, reach all regions.

Instead of defending only 2 in germany or only 3 bordering (north poland, north germany, north france) you have to defend "all" 7.
Instead of dividing trough 2 or 3, you have to divide trough 7. The enemy doesn't need to, he can attack the same target region with full force and switch targeted regions arround at will.

So the impression you get from "all" is the impression that reflects reality way better than "only 2 or 3".

 

[Denkt]

But he get a penalty because of distances to your regions.
Yes he can choose there to attack but that is the life of the defender.

 

[Ksyr]

7 is still a lot less micro than in HoI3. All is still misleading when it is only a few.

UK is the enemy and can, at this point, reach all regions.

Where did you see this? How effective will they be?

 

[Kovax]

Where did you see this? How effective will they be?

Effective enough if they're attacking an inland region with no defenders. The defending player has a choice between defending the more vulnerable areas near the enemy, or spreading out some of his forces to cover the inland areas to some degree. Realistically, those units near the border would be able to defend against raids on either coastal or inland targets.

It's not game-breaking, but it offers non-historical choices, rather than forcing one into the same set of choices as the countries actually faced. All in all, it's more "generic wargame" and less "WWII simulation".