Idea for a better a.i. by abstracting air and naval warfare

[Sky_WKing]

Missed the point!
The proposed abstraction is for air and convoy warfare, both wars of attrition not tactical brilliance.
Land warfare in WW2 was in many parts one of brilliant maneuvres, instead of attrition. HoI3 did it WW1-style, simply pushing back the enemy. Whichever side runs out of manpower first, loses.
Take Fall Gelb for instance: the campaign was decided by Mansteins Sichelschnitt, not attrition. A large encirclement of the enemy. Same with Barbarossa, Bagration etc.

Since air and convoy raiding are by nature wars of attrition, not abstracting them adds nothing to gameplay. Well, nothing but an array of exploits probably.
You don't have to be in favour of abstraction, but at least try to use solid arguments.

In fact my argument was only 25% sarcasm/criticism against abstraction. I am actually expecting an expansion upon the arcade mode in HOI3, where there were no supply routes. If the goal is to make the game more friendly to general public then a mode that turn a lot of things including combat, production, politics, tech, and diplomacy into abstraction (but not necessarily complete autopilot) would be nice. In fact I won't vote against incorporating the "arcade mode" in normal mode. When you have done all the decisive movements and all that's left is cleaning up you can simply switch to arcade and not bother with the huge mess of unit deployment in later stages of the game.

 

[seattle]

There is a big difference between abstraction and putting something under the AI's control.

For example, I want to make a big push into the Caucuses. I want air support for this drive. I need to come up with those fighters from somewhere and bombers and tactical support craft too. If I get too thin somewhere else this may allow the enemy on the Western front to launch a major offensive sooner. There are big choices to make here and you will not want to trust them to the AI. If anything, such a system will give more meaningful control and air warfare results than we have seen in the past. I know I won't miss having individual units running all over the map doing what they feel like doing which may or may not resemble closely what I told them to do.

Exactly. Abstraction in this case is merely a more manageable tool.
Current HoI games:
for i=0 to n=#air wings that need orders -1 do
1. select a single air wing.
2. re-base it to the desired air field
3. pick a target area/region
4. check the planes' range and may have to go back to step 2
5. pick mission
6. set duration

If you have 20 air wings, this loop repeats up to 20 times...

The abstraction would function like this:
for i=0 to n=number of theatres that need orders -1 do
1. pick theatre (like Western Europe)
2. assign a number of different planes to it.
3. check missions from the checkbox-list (x air superiority, x ground support...)

The current solution is simply bad game design. The proposed abstraction basically has the same effect while reducing the effort for both a.i. and the human player by a huge degree.

In air map mode, you could have progress bars for each mission type over the theatres (which I propose are fixed large regions, not customizable). Example: you look at Western Europe and see the progress bar for air superiority shifting towards the enemy. It's 80% towards the enemy which triggers different effects. The more progress, the stronger the effect.
You now can easily react to that development by assigning more interceptors to that theatre, if available.
It's no longer a tedious, micromanaging guessing game.
The game provides you with analytical tools and gives you the possibility to do swift easy to use reactions.

Who's with me?

 

[Big Nev]

Not I.

Sorry, but I think it's a terrible idea.

...

In air map mode, you could have progress bars for each mission type over the theatres (which I propose are fixed large regions, not customizable).

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but I think you're getting "abstraction" confused with "restriction".

Even if I thought this kind of thing was the way to go, I'd certainly want to be able to tell my aircraft where to not bother & where to definately avoid.

1st June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
2nd June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
3rd June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
4th June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
5th June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
6th June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
7th June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
8th June 1940. OK gentlemen. Today, we're going to be attacking targets in Germany.
9th June 1940. OK gentlemen. You get the idea.

On the pluss side, since we lost two more bombers a day last week, we've assigned another aircraft factory to the production line and are building more aircraft than we're loosing so we're going to win.



Does that strike anyone as just a little bit WW I?

 

[Beagá]

People are putting way too much Faith in the off map thingy for planes... It, alone, won´t solve anything. If the AI already struggles with 100 plane wings, what do you think it´s going to happen when it has to Split 100 planes in na airbase into smaller fractions which would then be sent to na área? Honestly, instead of asking change for the sake of change, reflect a bit.

 

[Dalwin]

What I am putting faith in is the concept of having air superiority over parts of the map. That is the most critical aspect. If this brings with it a streamlined and more manageable air system, that would be a bonus. If we still end up with single units cluttering the map, I'll be a bit disappointed but that by itself would not ruin the game.

If we end up with a system where, once again, naval units are able to almost ignore enemy ground based air; I likely won't be around for HOI V.

 

[Gratch11]

i agree with OP. air warfare should absolutely work by assigning numbers of aircraft to zones, and it would work well with the production line system. as for naval warfare i like the idea of convoy raiding being abstracted, but i still thing the other ships might be better off being player controlled.

I agree, but the missing part for me is how you would handle CAGs in this system. I still want the CAGs

 

[Dalwin]

My thought on CAGs is that you'd have a simple on/off checkbox as to whether you wanted them to launch strikes against ground targets. If that is set to off, they are only employed in naval engagements. If it is set to on, they become another potential source of ground strikes etc. in whatever zone they occupy. I do not think that the CAGs should be participating in establishing air superiority in a zone.

 

[shri]

May have chanced it?

In two minutes I've counted 40 operations involving transport of fuel, supplies, reinforcement and aircraft to Malta of which Pedestal is only one.

The milk runs performed by submarine and fast minelayers aren’t always mentioned individually.

Whilst a certain degree of further abstraction for the air war may improve the game (although I'm not convinced) abstracting convoys out would, IMHO, ruin it.

Many of the major naval battles were all about escorting supply. I think that to remove the strateigic significance of the Arctic Convoys and the Malta runs, to say nothing of what went-on in the Atlantic & Paccific would negate about half the reasons for having any kind of fleet at all.

Air Power was decisive if properly concentrated against a fleet, Adm. Cunningham (champion of Taranto) faced it against V.Richtofen's VIII Fleigerkorps at Crete.
Similarly in Norway it was the LW that forced the RN to beat the retreat. The KM had been decisively defeated by the RN.
In pacific warfare, land based Air Power was decisive. In-fact in good weather any fleet is vulnerable to a well supplied/well led Air force with close air bases.

 

[Big Nev]

My thought on CAGs is that you'd have a simple on/off checkbox as to whether you wanted them to launch strikes against ground targets. If that is set to off, they are only employed in naval engagements. If it is set to on, they become another potential source of ground strikes etc. in whatever zone they occupy. I do not think that the CAGs should be participating in establishing air superiority in a zone.

How else are you going to establish air superiority over any one of a few dozen critical locations in the Pacific, South China sea or Indian Ocean?

Forget Midway. How do you get air superiority over Australia?

 

[seattle]

My thought on CAGs is that you'd have a simple on/off checkbox as to whether you wanted them to launch strikes against ground targets. If that is set to off, they are only employed in naval engagements. If it is set to on, they become another potential source of ground strikes etc. in whatever zone they occupy. I do not think that the CAGs should be participating in establishing air superiority in a zone.

But why? It would require constant checking what mission is best at the moment. One minute air superiority is more efficient, the next minute attacking ground targets. If you don't permanently keep an eye on the changing conditions, one multiplayer enemy will and you are toast.
I would'nt even simulate CAGs separately from Carriers. Why would that even be necessary. Just merge organizing and strength losses with the carrier itself.

 

[Big Nev]

But why? It would require constant checking what mission is best at the moment. One minute air superiority is more efficient, the next minute attacking ground targets. If you don't permanently keep an eye on the changing conditions, one multiplayer enemy will and you are toast.
I would'nt even simulate CAGs separately from Carriers. Why would that even be necessary. Just merge organizing and strength losses with the carrier itself.

Now this is becoming silly.

So because your CV has lost all its aircraft, or it has flown them off to reinforce another CV or land base it’s suddenly lost 50% (or more) of its Strength & Org?

Whilst I agree that a carrier without aircraft is easier to sink than a carrier with aircraft, that’s only because the attacking aircraft don’t have a CAP to get through, not because it's suddenly more combustible.

Quite the opposite in fact.

And if a CV without aircraft is supported by another CV and protected by its cap, how do you justify the one without aircraft being easier to sink than the other?

EDIT:

Working this way, you may as well just say you’re building a fleet and have researched the technologies of RADAR, Naval Aviation and are going down the Carrier Doctrine tree rather than the Power Projection tree for your doctrines and leave it at that.

You will achieve naval superiority and, eventually naval supremacy in the Theatre of The Pacific (which is a pre-defined area of opperation that you can’t change) So long as you have enough factories assigned to the naval production lines & keep your research up to date... Job's a good'n.

Why do you need CAGs anyway? Or to make the distinction between battleships & cruisers?

And while we’re at it, destroyers are only little cruisers anyway, so let’s just have a fleet, with attributes based upon your research.

Done.

 

[Rudawitz]

People are putting way too much Faith in the off map thingy for planes... It, alone, won´t solve anything. If the AI already struggles with 100 plane wings, what do you think it´s going to happen when it has to Split 100 planes in na airbase into smaller fractions which would then be sent to na área? Honestly, instead of asking change for the sake of change, reflect a bit.

I'm all for a simplified system for air warfare with less micro. Granted, I don't know anything about programming, but perhaps someone who do can explain what is more difficult for the AI to pull off and why:

A: sensibly deploy and command 10 wings of INT and 15 wings of CAS in 500 provinces
B: sensibly deploy and command 1000 INT and 1500 CAS in ~20 designated air zones

I would hazard that the actual number of planes/units isn't the problem, but the complexity of the system. Wouldn't a smaller "front" in the air make it easier for the AI to put it's forces to good use?

With all due respect.

 

[podcat]

I'm all for a simplified system for air warfare with less micro. Granted, I don't know anything about programming, but perhaps someone who do can explain what is more difficult for the AI to pull off and why:

A: sensibly deploy and command 10 wings of INT and 15 wings of CAS in 500 provinces
B: sensibly deploy and command 1000 INT and 1500 CAS in ~20 designated air zones

I would hazard that the actual number of planes/units isn't the problem, but the complexity of the system. Wouldn't a smaller "front" in the air make it easier for the AI to put it's forces to good use?

With all due respect.

B is vastly simpler

 

[seattle]

B is vastly simpler

No surprise there. Can't wait for the DD covering the new abstracted air warfare. It won't unite the two factions just yet, but in the end only nostalgia will be in its way!
Hope that you'll give us a convenient interface for the new system with checkboxes, auto-settings (like keep #interceptor between 200 and 400 in this theatre, alarm icon if production can't cover the need), feedback about how well the selected missions are progressing.

This looks to finally become a HoI game that is even more user friendly than Vicky2.

 

[Beagá]

B is vastly simpler

If you can make na AI that can prioritize which provinces to attack in these 20 áreas I fail to see why you can´t do the same with 100 plane wings. IF, and it´s a big IF, the game had big áreas instead of provinces ok, but it doesn´t, and the end result is that you still have to split attack into said provinces.

For example if said área has 5 provinces, and in one there are tanks and in the others none, why the hell it´s easier to make a system where you have to allocate 500 planes, and a system with 5 wings of CAS is harder? Or suppose there are tanks in 2 and one day later there are in three. Isn´t the effort barely the same to make CAS redeploy and focus on said provinces?

Either way to me at least that is quite a secondary issue, as long as production and pilot training is interesting and the AI better it doesn´t really make a difference to me.

 

[Alex_brunius]

IF, and it´s a big IF, the game had big áreas instead of provinces ok, but it doesn´t, and the end result is that you still have to split attack into said provinces.

HoI2 had airwings only able to be given missions to attack big areas...

For example if said área has 5 provinces, and in one there are tanks and in the others none, why the hell it´s easier to make a system where you have to allocate 500 planes, and a system with 5 wings of CAS is harder? Or suppose there are tanks in 2 and one day later there are in three.

The comparison was not if it was easier to deploy 500 planes and 5 wings towards the same number of provinces.

We don't know how it will work in HoI4.

Perhaps you assign 500 CAS to attack a big area of say 10 provinces and the hard attack damage done is spread out across all tanks/heavy equipment in that big area?
Perhaps air units never can move into provinces at all but only fight in areas?
Perhaps they automatically attack and damage all suitable enemy units in range of the airbase with more damage to units that are closer?

Neither of us knows and can make any conclusions that it must work one or the other way just because the games has provinces and HoI3 works in a certain way.

 

[Daztek]

my worry is that the ai will never be good enough and that HOI4 will take away the player's control and deliver an air system suited to a less competent AI

remember the HOI3 HQ AIs and that whole story!

abstracting the air war to make it easy for a prospective air HQ AI - which will always be flawed and predictable - by deleting the hour-by-hour / geospatial tactics that have been integral to the HOI air war to date - in my view one of the best parts of the whole game - and basically replacing them with off board boxes is boring boring boring

i want to see my fighter campaign wear down the (human) enemy's best efforts and get my bombers wings through to bomb the airfields, or hunt out the enemy's ships or subs, find them, and commit my naval bomber wings, all hour by hour. i liked the way the air war was full of tricks and feints and keeping reserves and out guessing your opponent.

terrible loss if all that is reduced to trends on spreadsheets.

in fact if an individual unit system is kept, it would be good if we could get recon aircraft added to the mix

 

[seattle]

We don't know how it will work in HoI4.
Perhaps you assign 500 CAS to attack a big area of say 10 provinces and the hard attack damage done is spread out across all tanks/heavy equipment in that big area?
Perhaps air units never can move into provinces at all but only fight in areas?

That's exactly how I picture it and I'm pretty sure that in the end people would love it.
You have to consider that factories aren't simulated on a provincial level, but a regional level. That's another indicator for your assumption to be correct. Then there's the US-doctrine that boosts units during air superiority.

Let's take CAS. If the enemy rules the skies, your CAS will be grounded. German stukas had their hayday in the first half of the war due to the constant German air superiority. With 100% air supremacy, your CAS would unfold 100% bonus. Same with tac bombers and to a lesser extent strategic bombers. The bonus over that region would hinge upon the degree of air superiority.
Possible bonus system (valid for the entire region/theatre like Western Europe):
- interceptors, fighters move the air superiority progress bar to either side. The more in/against your favour, the stronger the bonus/malus will be

- tac bombers decrease enemy organization
- CAS increase enemy attrition (effectively causing strength loss)
- strategic bombers reduce IC, resources
- multi-role fighters can be assigned to both superiority and bombing missions

I honestly don't get why so many people are up in arms over this level of abstraction. In HoI2 we all complained about the area-orders for air units which constantly lead to your airforce bombing the wrong provinces. In Darkest Hour you were finally able to give orders on a regional level (a blessing for both navy and airforce). It wasn't only way more convenient, but also felt more realistic. As a nation's leader it feels gamey if you can micro every single division, air wing and vessel. The somewhat lesser level of control felt fresh and it worked very well.

The proposed level of abstraction of the airforce in HoI4 will essentially be a more user-friendly regional-control version of vintage HoI games. The old system was much more complicated, while only slightly being more complex. It was quite frankly bad game design.

 

[Poh]

my arms are over my head in pure joy if we get the air war simplified and i will be jumping and shouting if its something like an area based system or something similar. Im not the micro kind of person and hence i never really not into the HoI3 air model. There was too many things you needed to do all the time imho and it resulted in the fact that i focused more on the ground troops because that was "easier" or something. Atleast the air model didnt "move" me.
Tbh as the supreme commander guy i dont think choosing the exact timeframe for an attack etc is something i should do. I want to decide how many aircrafts we need and in what areas they need to be deployed.

I would be all for an area based system or something like that. Like Germany having an airzone for lets say northern france. Then if you wanted to do the battle of britain you could extend the zone to include the channel and sourthern UK. Then your job would be to funnel the planes into the area you wanted and keep track of how the air war was going. Then maybe let it tell you your loses and enemy losses on average pr. week for said area so you can decide to press it further or call it off. Im clearly on the seattle side of things i guess ^^

Well i dont doubt that PI can find a way to make it more interesting and im looking forward to what it is.

 

[No idea]

no surprise there. Can't wait for the dd covering the new abstracted air warfare 2.

wtf?????