There is something called concentration/saturation: one matter is 1 fighter per bomber and another matter is 10 fighters per bomber. So, in reality, kills are nonlinear. In my opinion a game that doesn't allow this it is unrealistic/broken.
Fighters don't attack planes passing trough.
- Thread starter Mevsrei
- Start date
-
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.
Its rather the other way around, those 200 fighters each facing the full bomber stream would be disadvantaged.....although there a few factors in the intercepors favour ( short flight times therefore fresh, the escorting fighters losing additional fuel and range due to fancy maneuvers and the need to drop their aux tanks before air combat, dispersed and less vulnerable basing ). But I guess - since it was a deep layered system - it made sense to layer it instead of creating a wall of fighters at the coast.
The developers have said that air combat are calculated 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 2. That mean a much larger airforce will not destroy everything in its path thus making an investment in an airforce completly pointless for everyone but the absolute most powerful countries.
It is a bit wrong to say that the developers design the game based on EU4.
It is a bit wrong to say that the developers design the game based on EU4.
I call you reasonable. (I believe that on the internet this is considered to be an insult.)
So that means if I want to attack Liverpool regions as Germany with my Bombers from Stuttgart Region in 1939, I only have to fear the interceptors at Liverpool and go through French territory, the channel and southern England without a chance of beeing intercepted?
England can bomb italian industry by flying through german occupied France (with hundreds of interceptors) just getting intercepted by a handful of outdated italian fighters at target Region?
sorry...strange
Those are good examples of things that I don't want to see happening in the game...
I know several people have mentioned this will change the way we deploy our planes away from a historical approach. I agree, I think it will.
I don't even have then energy for a half hearted suggestion on a better way to do this. I am just sad...
- 12
I really hope this gets changes in a DLC or a patch to more realistic approach
- 7
- 1
I feel that this is so much of a downer that it will be tackled in some way before the release. There are ways to deal with it without implementing a full-fetched path tracking, or so I believe. From all we know, they might be working on this right now (well not right now...).
- 1
@podcat can transport planes drop supplies? perhaps on encircled troops, to reduce the "cut supply" penalty.
I'd say in reality it works the other way around -- 10 fighters attacking a bomber have relatively higher chance to score killing blows on it, than 5 of them or 1, if just because the bomber's defenses become overwhelmed, vs being able to shoot the planes closing on them.
Dunno if it still possible however, as there is no fresh information about this since this dev diary.
- 2
@podcat does it mean, that I cannot block planes crossing from England to France or vice versa by placing fighters in the channel zone?
Not that i care much but bombers (and other aircraft) should be interceptable on their way. That was the case in HoI2, HoI3 and probably HoI1 too.
Yep that's right you cannot intercept bomber's in regions between their start and target, they use the Star Trek system and teleport to their destination
.- 7
First thought on seeing how this would work:
Bad.
Thought about the for awhile.
Still bad. They absolutely cannot release it the way it's been described here. Planes need to be concrete units moving across the map, not teleporting.
Paradox, you CANNOT half-ass this the way you did with naval combat in hoi3. You cannot afford to make one third of the games military forces useless to the defending side.
Bad.
Thought about the for awhile.
Still bad. They absolutely cannot release it the way it's been described here. Planes need to be concrete units moving across the map, not teleporting.
Paradox, you CANNOT half-ass this the way you did with naval combat in hoi3. You cannot afford to make one third of the games military forces useless to the defending side.
- 6
This is not true. Being concrete units across the map is not a criteria for a good air system. The issue of in-depth-interception, which imo is a very important issue, could very much be accounted for in a variety of ways in the current system. The risk is that if it's too abstracted/abstracted in the wrong ways then it becomes more related to arbitrary maluses more than controllable game mechanics.
- 6
+1. While the representation of planes as wings in HoI3 had its charms, I believe if this issue is solved, the more abstracted approach may work very well.
- 5
- 2
That's exactly what I mean yes. The devs have clearly stated that there's basically a hard-cap in stacking where 10on1 combat won't be resolved as such but rather 2on1 or similar (the exact ratio unknown until we have a released game to play with but judging by the scribbled notes and what's been said it's somewhere along those lines).
Sending in 500 bombers vs 1000 fighters will result in the same percentage loss as if you send 50 if there's an equal number of combats ocurring.
Of course a force of only a 100 fighters will have less chance of intercept than 1000 but the basic idea AFAIK is what I mentioned above.
Thus if we have multiple zone intercepts in depth you'd basically be forced (by a wish for optimization) to micro the number of fighters in each air zone along bomber paths to get as many optimal combats as possible ocurring in each zone along the path (which would change depending on target area). So I can somehow understand the reasoning behind PDS decision even though I would wish for a different solution.
- 2
Can you block bombers from entering your air space during WWII, there is an increasing chance to intercept bombers as the war progresses and during the Battle of Britain 75% was the norm at times reaching 90% but you cannot block them off completely. If the enemy is willing to accept the losses you will be intercepting them over the target areas in this case the air regions.
Is it even realistic to expect to stop them coming in over the Channel or the North sea., as far as I am aware even with an interception rate of 90% the Battle of Britain is mainly being fought over Southern parts of Britain not the sea.
Is it even realistic to expect to stop them coming in over the Channel or the North sea., as far as I am aware even with an interception rate of 90% the Battle of Britain is mainly being fought over Southern parts of Britain not the sea.
Hm, I didnt read through all of the thread (skimmed a lot of it) but this seems to be the situation;
Planes teleport from one area to another when assigned a mission there, meaning intervening areas have no effect on the aircraft as pertains to their destination and mission there. However, air supremacy can be tracked from origin zone to target zone, and is relevant for paradrops for example.
Would it not be possible to implement a flat attrition mechanic for these checks? Something like a certain % of attrition taken if you pass through a zone with enemy air superiorit on the way, or for each such zone if that is possible to take into account?
Planes teleport from one area to another when assigned a mission there, meaning intervening areas have no effect on the aircraft as pertains to their destination and mission there. However, air supremacy can be tracked from origin zone to target zone, and is relevant for paradrops for example.
Would it not be possible to implement a flat attrition mechanic for these checks? Something like a certain % of attrition taken if you pass through a zone with enemy air superiorit on the way, or for each such zone if that is possible to take into account?
- 3