Fighters don't attack planes passing trough.

[Praetori]

Having big air zones it is completely unrealistic as well. Air defense/interdiction is very limited by factors such as intelligence, radars and early warnings, airport locations, airplanes range, etc. This operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Dash for example can be "simulated" in HOI2 and HOI3 but not in HOI4.

The air zones as described by PDS isn't binary in effects, range still matters. The development choices made to prevent the stacking issues probably have more effect. If the enemy is only sending 100 bombers it doesn't matter if you have 1000 or 200 fighters other than in the long run (due to attrition and combat losses). You might as well spread your fighters out over several zones and indeed I suspect that's where the decision to not have interception-in-depth hails from (as otherwise you could optimize the interception mechanics and thus basically we're back into micromanagement hell brought upon us by the possibility to do so).

 

[Cardus]

The air zones as described by PDS isn't binary, range still matters. The development choices made to prevent the stacking issues probably have more effect. If the enemy is only sending 100 bombers it doesn't matter if you have 1000 or 200 fighters other than in the long run (due to attrition and combat losses). You might as well spread your fighters out over several zones and indeed I suspect that's where the decision to not have interception-in-depth hails from (as otherwise you could optimize the interception mechanics and thus basically we're back into micromanagement hell brought upon us by the possibility to do so).

The point is that this system is not realistic nor plausible as, if I have 100 fighters, I should be able to decide if I want to protect province x (in which I have my industry), province y (in which I have my oilfields) or province z (in which I have my fleet). Concentration is a key for local superiority and this is true for land, air and see battles.

 

[Denkt]

They could just add a cooldown to each order change to aircrafts so that orders can not be changed instantaneously.

The point is that this system is not realistic nor plausible as, if I have 100 fighters, I should be able to decide if I want to protect province x (in which I have my industry), province y (in which I have my oilfields) or province z (in which I have my fleet). Concentration is a key for local superiority and this is true for land, air and see battles.

You have to choose what to bomb. It is possible that each fighter get a chance to protect each of the targets per day and per night. So even a few number of fighters can protect against many bombers.

 

[Cardus]

They could just add a cooldown to each order change to aircrafts so that orders can not be changed instantaneously.
You have to choose what to bomb. It is possible that each fighter get a chance to protect each of the targets per day and per night. So even a few number of fighters can protect against many bombers.

If my fighters are spread out the whole BIG region how can I concentrate them?

Concentration is a key for local superiority and this is true for land, air and see battles.

 

[Praetori]

The point is that this system is not realistic nor plausible as, if I have 100 fighters, I should be able to decide if I want to protect province x (in which I have my industry), province y (in which I have my oilfields) or province z (in which I have my fleet). Concentration is a key for local superiority and this is true for land, air and see battles.

Coordinating fighter defenses and interceptions wasn't that simple in WW2. The climb-rate of most aircraft meant that they had to be launched well in advance of the bombers even coming close to their targets in order to make successful intercepts. Most air-zones that have been shown are not that far from what would be reasonable. Of course it would have been even better had they been historical (that information is not that hard to come by).
AFAIK there's nothing preventing you from having aircraft operating from one zone and into another or operating over their own zone.

 

[agentgb]

Coordinating fighter defenses and interceptions wasn't that simple in WW2. The climb-rate of most aircraft meant that they had to be launched well in advance of the bombers even coming close to their targets in order to make successful intercepts. Most air-zones that have been shown are not that far from what would be reasonable. Of course it would have been even better had they been historical (that information is not that hard to come by).
AFAIK there's nothing preventing you from having aircraft operating from one zone and into another or operating over their own zone.

So if i have fighters already in the channel at the altitude of a bomber or have been told to intercept over the channel, fighter command instructs them via controller that bombers will be flying roughly in there direction according to radar, but the bomber mission is london, is it fair the fighters in the channel should not be able to intercept?

I mean even in hoi4 they have narrowed it down to only light/heavy fighters, heavy fighters like the Beaufighter & Mosquito that could climb alot quicker then german bombers. Esepcially the Mosquito.

But even then, bombing berlin from south east england should atleast meet some resistances along the way.

 

[Gort11]

They could just add a cooldown to each order change to aircrafts so that orders can not be changed instantaneously.

Then it's still a case of "every day/week/month I need to re-check my regions to see which one Jeff has switched his bombers to". Better, but still not as good as the obvious solution of planes getting intercepted in each region between their base and their target.

 

[Praetori]

So if i have fighters already in the channel at the altitude of a bomber or have been told to intercept over the channel, fighter command instructs them that bombers will be flying roughly in there direction according to radar, but the bomber mission is london, is it fair the fighters in the channel should not be able to intercept?

Ideally the air zones of UK should stretch a bit out into the channel as historical and not follow the coast.
But aircraft on intercept missions over the channel proper should concentrate on attackers going after the shipping there and not try to climb after bombers at 15k ft unless there are no other targets.
Fighters on CAP is a different story but AFAIK there's no such distinction in HOI4.
Ideally the system would be intercept in depth as well as high attrition fuel gobbling CAPs with cross zone combat and stacking issues solved in some other way but we can't have everything.

 

[agentgb]

Ideally the air zones of UK should stretch a bit out into the channel as historical and not follow the coast.
But aircraft on intercept missions over the channel proper should concentrate on attackers going after the shipping there and not try to climb after bombers at 15k ft unless there are no other targets.
Fighters on CAP is a different story but AFAIK there's no such distinction in HOI4.
Ideally the system would be intercept in depth as well as high attrition fuel gobbling CAPs with cross zone combat and stacking issues solved in some other way but we can't have everything.

Mosquito could climb 2,880 ft/min , just over 5min to reach the height to intercept, should be doable over the channel imo

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Are you sure about the fact that the game can track paratroopers?

Unless I am severely mistaken the game can´t track paratroopers at all, it is just a movement order that if certain circumstances are met will teleport the paratroopers to the target province without adjacency being needed (like knights in chess) while you see arrows and animations. At least in HOI III we saw the divisions entering the airplanes and dropping over the target in RT which is good for immersion but not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that all airplanes could be intercepted before reaching the target even when the player doing the drop had global air superiority (...) albeit sometimes at a high cost but regardless he/she simply could not do it with impunity like I see in HOI IV. For aircraft (and supply) and pretty much everything else related to them everything seems to be done at province or group of provinces level using only animations, flags and calculations done in the background to see who is winning and if someone has air superiority. Very convenient for an AI with 0 strategic understanding and when the starting canvas has no air units.

Edit: also even when the enemy had air superiority para drops (etc.) could still be attempted despite sometimes being very costly but not in HOI IV!

 

[Praetori]

Mosquito could climb 2,880 ft/min , just over 5min to reach the height to intercept, should be doable over the channel imo

That is assuming already airborne like a CAP rather than intercept and perfect situational awareness. Could as easily be a swarm of 109s and then those climbing Mosquitos are mincemeat.
There were so many factors to ww2 air combat and C&C that any and all abstractions are compromises.

 

[Kovax]

Very convenient for an AI with 0 strategic understanding and when the starting canvas has no air units.

This may make the perfect selling point for HOI4: "So simple that even the AI can understand it".

It does appear that MANY of the changes are to allow the AI to handle the situation, in order to provide a more rational and challenging game, not to improve the mechanics for a human player or improve historical accuracy. I do agree with them to a point, because the occasional wonky behavior of the AI "broke" far too many games of HOI3 for me. When AI Germany pulls almost all of its troops off the Eastern Front right before launching Barbarossa, or the UK leaves one division to defend the entire British Isles against Axis landings, after you've spent a couple of hours setting up your own army for the big challenge that never comes, it's obvious that SOMETHING had to be done to fix the AI's problems....even if I'm not liking the direction it's taking.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

This may make the perfect selling point for HOI4: "So simple that even the AI can understand it".
It does appear that MANY of the changes are to allow the AI to handle the situation, in order to provide a more rational and challenging game, not to improve the mechanics for a human player or improve historical accuracy. I do agree with them to a point, because the occasional wonky behavior of the AI "broke" far too many games of HOI3 for me. When AI Germany pulls almost all of its troops off the Eastern Front right before launching Barbarossa, or the UK leaves one division to defend the entire British Isles against Axis landings, after you've spent a couple of hours setting up your own army for the big challenge that never comes, it's obvious that SOMETHING had to be done to fix the AI's problems....even if I'm not liking the direction it's taking.

But unfortunately they chose the least amount of work possible approach to work mostly around the problem (instead of tackling it) and this hurts a lot the depth of their games. Don´t get your hopes too high, albeit I´ve seen the AI in EU IV improve even if only slightly over the years it is still as dumb as a rock and capable of doing all the stupid things you sometimes see in HOI III. Why? Because it still can´t do the basics right and has near 0 strategic understanding of what it is doing; the only reason it appears to be competent sometimes is because the game is hugely simple by comparison with HOI III TFH!

 

[Cardus]

Unless I am severely mistaken the game can´t track paratroopers at all, it is just a movement order that if certain circumstances are met will teleport the paratroopers to the target province without adjacency being needed (like knights in chess) while you see arrows and animations. At least in HOI III we saw the divisions entering the airplanes and dropping over the target in RT which is good for immersion but not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that all airplanes could be intercepted before reaching the target even when the player doing the drop had global air superiority (...) albeit sometimes at a high cost but regardless he/she simply could not do it with impunity like I see in HOI IV. For aircraft (and supply) and pretty much everything else related to them everything seems to be done at province or group of provinces level using only animations, flags and calculations done in the background to see who is winning and if someone has air superiority. Very convenient for an AI with 0 strategic understanding and when the starting canvas has no air units.

Edit: also even when the enemy had air superiority para drops (etc.) could still be attempted despite sometimes being very costly but not in HOI IV!

That is what I thought. Airplanes do not exists so the only thing working is an algorithm that counts if, on target, there are some losses due to "defence" (i.e. AA or enemy fighters). I refrain my opinion: some choices like this are no because developers are lazy or incompetent but because the engine does not fit at all.

 

[Mevsrei]

These last two can be answered by general attrition. Out of the total US air losses only ~40% were due to combat (the rest being attrition losses such as accidents or mechanical breakdowns), there are other figures depending on how you count but 60% or more of all aircraft were lost due to other causes than combat. German figures are lower total percentage but then the cause for that is a horrendous amount of combat related losses late-war combined with less distance flown due to the shorter ranges involved.

Thanks for the clarification. But my standing is, gameplaywise, that even if they implement attrition, it wouldn't solve the problem.
If the bombers have the same attrition no matter if there are fighters or not, there is still no decision the player can make.

If I can see, I like colors.
If I lose this ability colors don't matter anymore, it doesn't change anything if someone paints everything black to fix the problem.

The same goes for trying to fix the lack of strategic decisions with a system that doesn't get influenced by strategic decisions.

 

[Praetori]

Thanks for the clarification. But my standing is, gameplaywise, that even if they implement attrition, it wouldn't solve the problem.
If the bombers have the same attrition no matter if there are fighters or not, there is still no decision the player can make.

Well enemy aircraft, if present in you target zone, will shoot your bombers thus you'll lose more. Enemy aircraft on base strike missions over your bomber bases will kill your bombers on the ground. The only thing we don't have are interceptions in depth and that's probably so we can't game the stacking limits and to avoid crazy tracking of flights all over.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

The only thing we don't have are interceptions in depth and that's probably so we can't game the stacking limits and to avoid crazy tracking of flights all over.

IMHO If the issue was stacking abuse they could simply limit the number of airplanes per base, squadron, region (etc.) similar to how they do with division composition. I think it was also done for convenience since their starting canvas (EU IV) does not have air units. This also explains why it is so much "better" to have 3d models instead of counters even if only as an option.

 

[Praetori]

IMHO If the issue was stacking abuse they could simply limit the number of airplanes per base, squadron, region (etc.) similar to how they do with division composition. I think it was also done for convenience since their starting canvas (EU IV) does not have air units. This also explains why it is so much "better" to have 3d models instead of counters even if only as an option.

It's rather the balance of air units vs damage output per stacking limit. If every zone passed could be involved you could get pretty crazy results by just spreading your interceptors. Some targets would be crazy hard to attack in the Soviet interior or continental US and the game would need to track disruption etc over zones and you would get interrupted battles for aircraft just passing a single province at the edge of a zone.

 

[Axe99]

What about making the AI only consider adjusting target regions for strategic bombing only periodically, say every three months or so. At the same time, it would adapt fight coverage about as fast as the player can switch his bombers? Basically you don't have to make the AI be a dick, but it doesn't have to be a pushover on the defense either.

Aye, if you had assymetric rates of adjusting defence and offence, that'd go a long way to making the single player game more tolerable. Would still feel funny, but at least not be too fiddly, good thinking .

They could just add a cooldown to each order change to aircrafts so that orders can not be changed instantaneously.

I'm pretty sure it takes time to move an air wing in any event, so there is a cost - but as Gort11 said, slower fiddly micromanagement is still fiddly micromanagement, and when it's historically implausible and not fun then there's not a whole lot of reason to have it in the game other than to make life easier for the AI (which, as Kovax says, is a good reason, if that's why this is happening - if, on the other hand, it's because "we don't care" (as per Praetori's pic), then it's a tad less defensible, and a bit of a lack of thinking things through on the part of the devs).

It's not a bad idea to limit order frequency, but it is a bit implausible, and it's also a restriction on player (and AI) freedom that players may not like (I'm guessing they haven't given the AI emotions, so it won't mind ). While implausible, it'd be better than micromanagement hell, but it might create other issues (for example, there's a naval battle building up, but we can't switch our bombers and fighters to support because we're waiting for the order cooldown to wear off) - if this happened, I think most folk would find it pretty off-putting.

One issue with the bombers and transfers is that most bombers (at least by mid-game) will have enough range that they won't need to transfer to different airbases (so could bomb Berlin on one day, Paris the next and Munich the day after that). Fighters also increase in range, but by nowhere near as much (well, assuming the fighters are somewhat historically plausible as well), so will be able to cross some strategic zones, but not enough to 'shadow' a bomber formation and play "bomber/interceptor micromanagement".

 

[tom_jones]

It's rather the balance of air units vs damage output per stacking limit. If every zone passed could be involved you could get pretty crazy results by just spreading your interceptors.

You seem to be presuming the bombers would get hit harder by passing through e.g. 5 zones with 200 interceptors in each, vs going through initial zone with 1000 interceptors? Not sure why you'd think that'd be the case; maybe if damage output wasn't linear, but there's no reason for it not to be.