Pretty concerned about the rather large size of air mission operation areas... Let's assume a D-Day scenario. I want to provide heavy air cover over Caen, Cherbourg, etc. However, Jerry has a ton of flak set up in Calais (pretty far away, no?). What happens when my planes launch if the smallest area I can confine their operations to is "Northern France"? Will they fly willy-nilly all over that AAA in Calais even though they have no business being there? Will my bombers be dropping on Paris while fortifications go unexploded at Dog Red?
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.
Air Transportation? No, we're just going to have Paradrops.
I'm not sure of DAK could be entirely air supplied. I mean in theory, with enough planes and no one shooting them down? I don't see why not. Unsure how practical it'd be to do so though.
Alert system is a good point. I would like to have f.e. weekly reports about the progress of an operation. so for battle of britain, if you want to destroy all airfields in south england you should get some kind of a report that you make good or bad progress. so like at the moment you destroyed 45% of all airfields, but be carefull your fighter and bomber losses increase more than enemy losses.....
A great step in abstracting airwarfare, but I hope it develops towards the ability to make precise attacks and defenses.
1. Operational limits - ok, you can have more aircraft than capacity, at expense of efficiency. What efficiency penalties did you have in mind? Different penalties for each aircraft type and mission? Air interceptors could be slower to react (airbase too crowded to launch quickly), repair would be slower, perhaps range shoulda affect you for offensive missions, as aircraft have to loiter midair waiting for the others to take off?
2. I love the fact that CAGs are now gone, and you will have different mix of aircraft on the carrier, as seen on the Graf Zeppelin. This is a huge step.
3. Building airbases to increase operational limits - with the range being so abstract and the strategic regions being so large, it feels that the decisions of where to build airbases become quite a moot point. I'm worried about this abstraction, with states and strat region size, losing some lower level tactical ability that we have with land combat. I know land combat is important, but naval and air combat won the war for the allies. I just don't want it too abstract.
4. Will the states and strat regions be moddable? Meaning can modders adjust which provinces belong in a state or strat region? Even adding more states and strat regions? It seems like this is something the AI should be able to handle.
5. Will we be able to "lift the hood" and see the detail of each mini battle going on simultaneously? Will be be able to call a retreat/abort based on what we see (odds not in our favor, casualties too high, etc)? Else, this would seem incredibly too abstract to me.
6. What if a strat region or a state is currently controlled say 60/40 by allies/axis. They both have AA, as you have shown the possibility?
7. Will we be able to attack a specific province, or is this forcing us to use air power on equal terms as the AI, only selecting HOI3 type regions (now states and strat regions in HOI4)? To me, that's what it feel like is happening.
8. I certainly like the idea of going to individual aircraft - I never lose an aircraft unit in HOI3, I make sure it lives and then I repair. Looks like you won't be able to avoid it in this model, which is something I like (more realistic, more fair). However, will individual aircraft which air damaged be prevented to fly again until they have reached some proper level of strength level? How is this repair paid for? By building more aircraft?
1. Operational limits - ok, you can have more aircraft than capacity, at expense of efficiency. What efficiency penalties did you have in mind? Different penalties for each aircraft type and mission? Air interceptors could be slower to react (airbase too crowded to launch quickly), repair would be slower, perhaps range shoulda affect you for offensive missions, as aircraft have to loiter midair waiting for the others to take off?
2. I love the fact that CAGs are now gone, and you will have different mix of aircraft on the carrier, as seen on the Graf Zeppelin. This is a huge step.
3. Building airbases to increase operational limits - with the range being so abstract and the strategic regions being so large, it feels that the decisions of where to build airbases become quite a moot point. I'm worried about this abstraction, with states and strat region size, losing some lower level tactical ability that we have with land combat. I know land combat is important, but naval and air combat won the war for the allies. I just don't want it too abstract.
4. Will the states and strat regions be moddable? Meaning can modders adjust which provinces belong in a state or strat region? Even adding more states and strat regions? It seems like this is something the AI should be able to handle.
5. Will we be able to "lift the hood" and see the detail of each mini battle going on simultaneously? Will be be able to call a retreat/abort based on what we see (odds not in our favor, casualties too high, etc)? Else, this would seem incredibly too abstract to me.
6. What if a strat region or a state is currently controlled say 60/40 by allies/axis. They both have AA, as you have shown the possibility?
7. Will we be able to attack a specific province, or is this forcing us to use air power on equal terms as the AI, only selecting HOI3 type regions (now states and strat regions in HOI4)? To me, that's what it feel like is happening.
8. I certainly like the idea of going to individual aircraft - I never lose an aircraft unit in HOI3, I make sure it lives and then I repair. Looks like you won't be able to avoid it in this model, which is something I like (more realistic, more fair). However, will individual aircraft which air damaged be prevented to fly again until they have reached some proper level of strength level? How is this repair paid for? By building more aircraft?
All different stats, you would set Priority to Normandy and they'd be concentrated there.
Overall a super interesting Dev Diary, looking forward to hear more how air support, Carrier warfare and such will work.
I hope you can reconsider these points. Plenty fuel for training ( no pilot shorage ) and aces sent home to train new recruits are generally agreed to be the major reasons the allies were able achieve such superior performance late war in both Europe and the Pacific. Many historians argue these factors had a greater impact then tech supriority had ( which is modelled in great detail in HoI ). This is also proven in practice in Europe where German aircrafts in general was at least equally if not more advanced then allied counterparts.
The Japanese early war successes could not have happened without elite trained pilots, and the Americans could not have achieved 10:1 K: D ratios late war without elite trained pilots.
( note that I am reffering to 1vs1 individual plane performance here regardless of number of planes involved ).
Juggling fuel-requirements for training doesn't have to be any micromanage at all. It could quite easilly be handled with a single slider or budget that you only move if your available fuel changes dramatically. Attached to it could be a single value similar to officer ratio in HoI3 keeping track of the overall training level of your global pilot pool.
The importance of Pilot training for the airwar cannot be understated. Look at for example the US production number of aircraft and you understand how large their commitment to pilot training was in terms both of IC, fuel and "skilled aces" / leadership. One out of five of every aircraft ( bomber or fighter ) produced in USA during WW2 was for training ( and these did not suffer anywhere near the same attrition as those on the fronts ).
I realize the "rule of fun" also might be a good reason to keep pilot/crew training out of the game, but without any real consequences of fuel shortage the game will be no more "fun" then HoI3 in this aspect ( where global fuel shortage basically never is a problem ).
I hope you can reconsider these points. Plenty fuel for training ( no pilot shorage ) and aces sent home to train new recruits are generally agreed to be the major reasons the allies were able achieve such superior performance late war in both Europe and the Pacific. Many historians argue these factors had a greater impact then tech supriority had ( which is modelled in great detail in HoI ). This is also proven in practice in Europe where German aircrafts in general was at least equally if not more advanced then allied counterparts.
The Japanese early war successes could not have happened without elite trained pilots, and the Americans could not have achieved 10:1 K: D ratios late war without elite trained pilots.
( note that I am reffering to 1vs1 individual plane performance here regardless of number of planes involved ).
Juggling fuel-requirements for training doesn't have to be any micromanage at all. It could quite easilly be handled with a single slider or budget that you only move if your available fuel changes dramatically. Attached to it could be a single value similar to officer ratio in HoI3 keeping track of the overall training level of your global pilot pool.
The importance of Pilot training for the airwar cannot be understated. Look at for example the US production number of aircraft and you understand how large their commitment to pilot training was in terms both of IC, fuel and "skilled aces" / leadership. One out of five of every aircraft ( bomber or fighter ) produced in USA during WW2 was for training ( and these did not suffer anywhere near the same attrition as those on the fronts ).
I realize the "rule of fun" also might be a good reason to keep pilot/crew training out of the game, but without any real consequences of fuel shortage the game will be no more "fun" then HoI3 in this aspect ( where global fuel shortage basically never is a problem ).
Last edited:
Could you not have Transport airplanes (that are flagged to carry units) see two types of 'flags'? One allows units to airdrop and another to board and unboard? So when the transport plane moves from one air base to another it could unload any unit type. This way mountain units could be moved from one secure airbase to another. They would only have the 'flag' that allows boarding & unboarding.
Air supply/transportation was practiced successfully in smaller scale during the invasion of Crete and the invasion of Norway, so there is historical ground to model this. Nothing says it could not have worked on bigger / division scale given more time and aircraft.
There is also historical evidence that uncontested it's possible to even supply an entire million city with airsupply using WW2 tech with the Berlin Airlift
Yes the attrition to air transports was very high if contested, but isn't that another reason it fits perfectly into this new attriton based model your building?
The important thing is to model historical limitations of airlifts:
* High/Extreme attrition if contested
* Need of large airfields in both ends to build an effective airbridge ( where HoI3 airsupply failed ).
* Limited to very light divisions/equipment only unless new Aircrafts are developed
Will it be possible to define "custom" regions in-game (not modding)? For purpose of defining areas of air missions? I click this this and that province and congratulation, you are now custom region.
Agreed. Begging that PDS allows this mechanic, but doesn't implement, allowing it to be used by modders...but then that leaves the AI not using this ability at all, correct? But, as there is no longer a rebase function as in HOI3 (but rather a transfer function), it actually seems to me that you won't even be able to air transport paratroopers from one region to another...just aircraft. TBH, it seems like this would be more fun in a post WW2 mod, where air transport aircraft have huge amounts of capacity, and air based mobility was more the norm...maybe not for a WW2 game unfortunately. So, disagreed.
So speed is good against bombers and agility against fighters?
What about heavy fighters in combat against fighters? The former shoots first with heavier guns. The latter use more of their Air Attack value?
What about ceiling?
What about restricted night flying capabilities?
IRL:
-Apart from surprise, speed was the single most important factor in an airfight.
-Agility was important only between more or less equally fast planes. Arguably the most impressive real life test for this was the US-Japanese air war from 1942 onwards: US speed vs Japanese agility. Guess who won.
-It's not like heavy twin engine fighters were per se faster than their single engine counterparts. Most time they were NOT. Twin engine fighters were used for only one reason: They permitted a bigger payload. The payload was used for extra 1. fuel, 2. weapons (like anti bomber rockets), 3. radar equipment and an operator. They were not used for more horse power. For this, stronger motors in single engine planes with a better weight to HP ratio would do. Plus, twin-engine fighters never constituted a big part of any fighter force. They were expensive and service intensive.
-Ceiling was a major factor in the (anti-)bombing campaign. Not many fighters could follow bombers when they choose to fly really high. This required special high ceiling versions.
-For the first half of WW2 night flying was a specialist's ability. Not all bomber and transporter crews could do it. Very few fighter jockeys could do it.
I must say this screenshot is clearly laking in the cliff department. i for one hope that one day, the coast of britain and normandy will have cliffs were appropriate.
[video=youtube;mZ3cM2cvfic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ3cM2cvfic[/video]
(most likely not real, but you get the idea)
Other than that great D&D. As other have pointed out, i'm curious about how we will be able to coordinate land and air forces for close air support and TAC bombing.
[video=youtube;mZ3cM2cvfic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ3cM2cvfic[/video]
(most likely not real, but you get the idea)
Other than that great D&D. As other have pointed out, i'm curious about how we will be able to coordinate land and air forces for close air support and TAC bombing.
No answer of the question of if oil will be required for operations. I get the impression you guys still dont know if oil will be a stockpile or a flow at this point.
Well it looks somewhat prettier than hOI 3, hope it´s improved a bit more in that aspect if possible.
Will pilots be a resource? I hope they do. Since the micro will be decreased, no reason to not have strategical depth in other area.
Will pilots be a resource? I hope they do. Since the micro will be decreased, no reason to not have strategical depth in other area.
I like this DD a lot, but I have some concerns/questions about the leadership system in the game:
1.) Are we not going to have any air generals in the game? Please clarify. I may have just misunderstood what you were saying.
2.) Will there be separate commands for air/naval/ land forces?
3.) Are y'all just getting rid of all the admirals and generals from HOI3 ( I know there are no division commanders which I feel is a mistake and unhistorical)?
I know me and and many others liked having these historic generals and admirals leading our forces. It was cool and it feels very historical. Am I just being paranoid about this? Can someone please tell me where I going am wrong in my questions? I feel like I am in some areas so if someone can please point out where I am wrong at I would appreciate it.
edit: I know all of this may be answered in a future DD, so please tell me if that is the case.
1.) Are we not going to have any air generals in the game? Please clarify. I may have just misunderstood what you were saying.
2.) Will there be separate commands for air/naval/ land forces?
3.) Are y'all just getting rid of all the admirals and generals from HOI3 ( I know there are no division commanders which I feel is a mistake and unhistorical)?
I know me and and many others liked having these historic generals and admirals leading our forces. It was cool and it feels very historical. Am I just being paranoid about this? Can someone please tell me where I going am wrong in my questions? I feel like I am in some areas so if someone can please point out where I am wrong at I would appreciate it.
edit: I know all of this may be answered in a future DD, so please tell me if that is the case.
Last edited:
oil is a "flow". fuel will probably be a stockpile. its not implemented yet and kinda fuzzy design wise, so basically what you said ^^
Considering the fact that it's a pre-alpha shot, I think I am going to love the new map.
The new air war concept looks very promising. Good job, guys.
The new air war concept looks very promising. Good job, guys.
Goring's utterly failed attempt to air supply the encircled Sixth Army at Stalingrad.
A rough point tally based on a quick read through:
+1 for Wind sock
+5 for multiple sea zones across the channel
+5 For including an image of a literal DD
-5 for the apparent size of "Strategic Regions"
+5 for trying new things
+5 for all the thought going into the air aspect of the game
-20,000 for 3D
+1 for Wind sock
+5 for multiple sea zones across the channel
+5 For including an image of a literal DD
-5 for the apparent size of "Strategic Regions"
+5 for trying new things
+5 for all the thought going into the air aspect of the game
-20,000 for 3D
