It's included in the form of tech. As old planes die, they will be replaced by newere more modern planes of the same type.
Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 7 - Air Combat
- Thread starter Darkrenown
- 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.
It's included in the form of tech. As old planes die, they will be replaced by newere more modern planes of the same type.
You know that The Allies throwed per german civilian a 300kilo bombe on german cities? Please tell my grandmum how she had a great life.
IIRC it has been mentioned that there will be a possibility to upgrade existing equipment by feeding it back into production lines, with reduced resource requirement.
Question is will the equipping of air wings be similar to what has been proposed for land warfare, if I have a mix of newer planes in my inventory and older ones will the squadrons get equipped with the new ones first and than the old ones and will some wings have a mix of both in some cases so that their statistics are based on the mix.
I would expect this, but it should be quite a huge reduction like 90%. Yes you need to build new engines, or wings, etc... but you also recycle and melt down all the old pieces that your removing. Really the only thing that it should take is time.
A aircraft engine was rather expansive I doubt they would just melt it down if it still was working.
It seams like the game will have two types of uppgrades, tech and experience.
If we use our knowledge of land units and apply it to air, experince will be used to improve current models while technology will be used to develop completly new models.
That's an argument for increased resource flow rather than (greatly) reduced IC requirements.
As for the map, I'm worried that the borders of Strategic Regions end up defining the defensive lines when used by a savvy player (or clever AI) because assigned attack missions won't look over the border for concentrations ofenemy targets when they've run out of things to hit in the assigned Region. This would be especially inconvenient for an attacker, who would have to shuttle his air force between Regions as he advances or lose air superiority, and depending on how long it takes to shift aircraft around it could be days before he can start air operations again from the new Strategic Region.
However, a good planning tool that interacts with air units and allows planning based on territory as well as timetables could cover this problem fairly easily by letting you provide instructions for the moving and assigning of aircraft for sorties right with the advance of the troops.
We weren't talking about those types of upgrades that have already been mentioned. We were talking about what happens to those tanks/planes/ships after you unlock the upgrades with experience.
You would have N amount of Panzer IV-A X amount of Panzer IV-D Y amount of Panzer IV-F... and they have mentioned that there will likely be a way to upgrade these. For all of these the Chasis/airframe would be the same, but things like armor plates, engines, etc would all upgrade.
While in the real world you would keep some of these as stock for repairs, in the game this isn't tracked, so we can essentially say they are all sent to a scrap yard and meted down.
To be honest after reading a few books on wartime Germany I wouldn't be surprised if they melted it down to make - tank engines. Hitler fervently believed that the war would be won by bigger and better tanks. The air force was a much lower priority. Of course another part of the blunder was all these shiny new powerful tanks were given to relatively "green" troops who either got killed right away through inexperience or were not experienced enough to maximize the damage they could do. Still by the later stages of the war I'm sure it would not have made much difference. The Russians could replace their losses much faster.
I think it was in Speer's book that he mentions the first 6 tigers to be used in combat were immediately incapacitated because their green crews took them off the road (which was surrounded by marsh) and promptly got stuck (and killed).
Right - and there's no reason every air zone/region should require them, either. They could represent optional bonuses, not mandatory allocations.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree, here, I think. Could-be's and might-have-beens can be debated for ever; we'll never really know just what the outcome of a Luftwaffe victory would have been, but the potential knock-on effects (i.e. the RN might block an invasion but lose the ability to control another of the three key naval theatres, causing the loss of Suez, Gibraltar and Africa and severing communications with India) or direct effects would have been critically serious to the UK. Maybe they would even have forced a settlement with Hitler. Maybe they would also have forced Hitler to delay Barbarossa - who knows?
Niiiice fix! On that one, at least, we agree.
If old kit is to be recycled for anything, it should be experience of new units/production time for new units/manpower rate, it seems to me. The most common use for old gear was for training (after second-line units had had their go).
When people say that German women were in the workforce in higher rates, what types of roles were the women filling in the workforce? Are we talking factory workers or domestic servents?
It was in there already. Women took over agricultural jobs at small farms. Now, I wonder if that was actually all that different in US or if the US government just didn't count being a farm wife as work.
Never been a fan of Tooze, though he has undoubtedly done a lot of great work, his hatred of Albert Speer almost seems personal and I have difficulty trusting contrarian-historians.
It might be illogical but it was a fact. And simple search of history will prove it. Germany was NOT anywhere near a war economy in 1938.
You guys are correct. My point was strictly related to the graph.
Ah. Well the would seem valid but perhaps meaning something different then we thought. IIRC the german agriculture sector wasn't very efficient in the 40s. So putting a third of the female population to work there might be thought of more an example of make-work aspect of the Nazi ideology. It's certainly a different story then Nazis excluding women from the labor force but it still leaves plenty of room to argue that the allies made better use.
It is not make work. Food production was hugely important to the Nazi war effort. They had a less efficient agricultural sector but there wasn't any slack especially when you're trying to feed 10 million hungry soldiers who are no longer producing themselves.
Just because food is important doesn't mean that having women work on food production in an outdated sector was a logical choice. I don't have a complete picture here but I imagine it would have made a lot more sense to put those womanpower to creating double or triple shifts on at the factories producing farm equipment and fix that bloated farm sector. The US mechanized farms heavily during WWII. I dont have the complete picture here but it could be that the Germans would have found it culturally beneficial to put the women into women's work on the farms when it would have helped more to put them to work starting double shifts on the farm equipment factories.
To change the subject slightly there is a pretty strong data point on Americans labor that wouldn't show up in employment, the victory gardens. A quick google lookup indicates 20 million gardens and half US vegetable production came from gardens so that's pretty significant.
To change the subject slightly there is a pretty strong data point on Americans labor that wouldn't show up in employment, the victory gardens. A quick google lookup indicates 20 million gardens and half US vegetable production came from gardens so that's pretty significant.
First off, your question was whether the air war would even be worth bothering with at all. After HOI3, that is certainly a fair question.
The 5% for air superiority example, clearly said in the parts you snipped out that even discounting all the benefits of the targetted missions and of strategic bombing, that if all I got was a 5% boost to ground combat it would still be worth fighting.
Your point about the huge investment by the Brits historically is way off base in the context of the discussion. The reason for this is obvious. If the Germans "had not bothered" with the air war at all, the Brits could have accomplished more with a smaller investment and few casualties. You are tyrying to have your cake and eat it too with this sort of argument. Either the air war is contested and both sides are paying in industry etc. or it is uncontested and one side is getting the benefits on the cheap.
I used to falsely believe that air power kicked butt. But reality shows this was simply not true. On average only about 5% of land combat assets were destroyed by air power. Air power was essential but NOT because of direct combat losses.