Land based Naval Air Useless?

[Dalwin]

But if it's unintentional why it's not got fixed long ago?

That cannot be why. The very question makes no sense since the one attack bug only happens when friendly ships are also part of the battle.

This leaves two situations. In the first you have the planes attacking alone which allows them to attack as often as they can given their ability to spot the convoys, i.e. not affected by any bug. The second situation involves friendly ships and almost always results in all convoys dying. Once again the bug has no effect versus convoys.

The one attack bug impacts fighting enemy warships when your own are also present. That is all it effects. There is no situation involving convoys in which the bug is greatly pertinent. Even a situation where both sides have warships and convoys are present usually involves the death of the convoys. If it does not then your planes get another chance to intercept the convoys as they continue to pass through the zone.

 

[Gwydion5]

I also think some balance could be achieved by redrawing the sea zones. Land based naval bombers should rule the coastlines. Beyond (further out to sea) that efficiency should drop off quite a bit. Oh and with coastal sea zones you could by default push all convoys susceptible to attack by enemy nations/factions out to a bigger sea area where (land based) planes are less useful and naval would have more purpose.

To give an example with the Iberian Coast :

I'd cut the Iberian coast in to two with everything east of the red line being a coastal sea zone. Then have the AI shift its convoy lines west of that red line when the coast sea zone is deemed hostile / unsafe. IE At war with Portugal or Spain or England from Gibraltar.

 

[Dalwin]

I also think some balance could be achieved by redrawing the sea zones. Land based naval bombers should rule the coastlines. Beyond (further out to sea) that efficiency should drop off quite a bit. Oh and with coastal sea zones you could by default push all convoys susceptible to attack by enemy nations/factions out to a bigger sea area where (land based) planes are less useful and naval would have more purpose.

To give an example with the Iberian Coast :

View attachment 252787

I'd cut the Iberian coast in to two with everything east of the red line being a coastal sea zone. Then have the AI shift its convoy lines west of that red line when the coast sea zone is deemed hostile / unsafe. IE At war with Portugal or Spain or England from Gibraltar.

That is an interesting notion, but I do find a few issues with it.

First it mostly impacts CAS performing naval missions since the range of NAVS is significantly greater.

Second, considering that one cannot control the routing of convoys, I think this would make the determination of whether a route passes through hostile areas more random. There would be a dangerous strip along the coast and a safe zone a bit further out. Which route was taken is outside player control. This would in effect make the land based air even less useful against convoys, but in a random way.

The current method of larger zones brings with it some inherent advantages. There are no easy safe passages. The large zone may cause reduced efficiency so that the air craft threat is also reduced, but it will not be reduced to zero.

Likewise the existing method increases the significance of variants which improve range for plane types which you will assign to naval patrols.

 

[AegonTheUnready]

Could it be that, in abstract, naval battles talles take one day or less, regrdless of what the game clock says?

 

[Gwydion5]

First it mostly impacts CAS performing naval missions since the range of NAVS is significantly greater.

CAS could be balanced by giving them less naval attack capability. Nav Bombers would also be more efficient in the adjacent sea zones to coastal sea zones. The ideal goal here is that naval bombers are superior at coastal zones, but not over powered in terms of sea interdiction thus giving surface/sub and carrier groups their proper place at sea.

Second, considering that one cannot control the routing of convoys, I think this would make the determination of whether a route passes through hostile areas more random.

That really depends on which side of the fence you want to fall on in terms of convoy / route management. If you are looking for a more stream lined version that is some what intelligent, then shifting the routes automatically to the adjacent sea zone of a coastal zone would be pretty easy. This would reduce the effectiveness naval air power interdicting convoys while also giving emphasis for the player to put subs and surface fleets in those sea zones.

Now if you want to manually create the routes then it will be a different conversation. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Just spit balling with what we have. HOI4 does need some route changes to happen based on the hostility of the nation as the english channel (and other sea zones) is a death trap. This also helps with island war fare and various other sea zones with islands that are way too large and don't capture the realism of patrols that circle an island 50-100 miles out or so.

 

[Gwydion5]

Could it be that, in abstract, naval battles talles take one day or less, regrdless of what the game clock says?

This is another issue with Naval Battles. Particular sub warfare. Having a wolf pack take a week to engage a group of convoys is completely unrealistic. Fleeing on the other hand is a different story. But a lot of times with sub groups they engage and days past before they actually fire on the convoy / ship group. That needs some refinement, like Subs actually engaging right on top of the convoy and then spending a couple days withdrawing? (Not a WW2 buff, so someone with more historical knowledge can correct me. )

 

[Dalwin]

Could it be that, in abstract, naval battles talles take one day or less, regrdless of what the game clock says?

That is a viewpoint that I myself have considered using as a rationale. Where is breaks down is when carrier planes are present and instead of getting only two or three sorties which is the most that could be expected in a single day, those carrier planes will conduct a great many sorties unless they are destroyed. The rationale of the battle really only taking a single day also breaks down in the face of transit times. A troop convoy that would normally require a week or less to cross the Med will require more than two if it is intercepted only once. It could be a month or more if it is intercepted multiple times.

CAS could be balanced by giving them less naval attack capability. Nav Bombers would also be more efficient in the adjacent sea zones to coastal sea zones. The ideal goal here is that naval bombers are superior at coastal zones, but not over powered in terms of sea interdiction thus giving surface and carrier groups their proper place at sea.



That really depends on which side of the fence you want to fall on in terms of convoy / route management. If you are looking for a more stream lined version that is some what intelligent, then shifting the routes automatically to the adjacent sea zone of a coastal zone would be pretty easy. This would reduce the effectiveness naval air power interdicting convoys while also giving emphasis for the player to put subs and surface fleets in those sea zones.

Now if you want to manually create the routes then it will be a different conversation. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Just spit balling with what we have. HOI4 does need some route changes to happen based on the hostility of the nation as the english channel (and other sea zones) is a death trap. This also helps with island war fare and various other sea zones with islands that are way too large and don't capture the realism of patrols that circle an island 50-100 miles out or so.

I think you underestimate the historical range and effect of land based air. Do a bit of reading on the Battle of the Atlantic and how planes from USA/UK/Greenland were able to cover all but a relatively small area in the middle of the Atlantic (the Mid-Atlantic Gap). This gap was eventually covered by escort carriers, which are not even in the game, and it was this as much as anything else that sealed the fate of uboats in the Atlantic.

Your idea of restricting land based air to a region closer to the coast directly contradicts historical precedent in my opinion. Further, to be able to manually set at least the arrival and departure ports for convoy routes is something badly needed, as anyone who has played Japan can attest since when they buy something from Russia it comes from Leningrad or Murmansk instead of Vladivostok. Adding such control when combined with your idea would make land based air, which is already too weak, even weaker.

 

[Gwydion5]

I think you underestimate the historical range and effect of land based air.

and...

Your idea of restricting land based air to a region closer to the coast directly contradicts historical precedent in my opinion.

My point is that in terms of efficiency the coastal regions should be able to be easily covered and patrolled. The range issue is where efficiency decreases, so while yes you could in HOI4 capture the range, the efficiency would be questionable. I could be totally wrong about that, but in the end wouldn't this be an improvement over the current system? Because right now there are sea zones so big that you can't possibly hope to cover them efficiently. Some of the islands in the pacific for example do not allow close air patrols of the island and that to me is the bigger infraction on historical accuracy.

Further, to be able to manually set at least the arrival and departure ports for convoy routes is something badly needed, as anyone who has played Japan can attest since when they buy something from Russia it comes from Leningrad or Murmansk instead of Vladivostok.

On Russia / Japan that sounds like a bug? And in terms of arrival / destination points, I would think that based on intelligence, the convoys would use the route deemed safest? I'm just not sure that needs to be manually controlled, but I would completely support the ability to manually control it. I'm just not sure PDS is up for that? Hell my position is whatever is easiest (most probable) for PDS to give us a better convoy route system. If it's manual then great, if it's automated then great too.

Adding such control when combined with your idea would make land based air, which is already too weak, even weaker.

My point was to counter balance Naval Air being superior to navy. By increasing it's efficiency to protect the coast, but reducing it's efficiency to attack at open sea, that you could achieve balance. For one you are splitting your air power between two sea zones instead of one, and I have a feeling coastal sea zones will get the lion share of nav bombers as those will be high efficiency areas.

 

[C-Breeze]

I think you underestimate the historical range and effect of land based air. Do a bit of reading on the Battle of the Atlantic and how planes from USA/UK/Greenland were able to cover all but a relatively small area in the middle of the Atlantic (the Mid-Atlantic Gap). This gap was eventually covered by escort carriers, which are not even in the game, and it was this as much as anything else that sealed the fate of uboats in the Atlantic.

I was thinking much the same thing. In the actual conflict, land based air was quite effective even far out to sea, so I'm having a hard time grasping the rationale for reduced efficiency based on distance from the coast. I suppose you could make the argument that a greater number of sorties would be possible close to the coast, but even that does little to negate the historical success of Allied aircraft against U-boats in the Atlantic.

What I'm trying to say is: Allied pilots knew where the convoys lanes were, so they didn't need more eyes, (i.e. more sorties), to find the enemy, because they already knew approximately where the enemy would congregate. So in some respects it was actually easier to find U-boats far out to sea than it was near the coast. 'Cause in the coastal sector you had to get lucky and catch them in transit to and from their bases. Which was tricky since you didn't know when they'd be arriving, plus, when close to base, U-boats tended to travel at night making them much harder to spot. Whereas, at sea, you could simply shadow convoys and patrol the lanes knowing the Germans would be drawn there at certain times, (based on the proximity of convoys), like moths to a flame.

 

[Gwydion5]

I was thinking much the same thing. In the actual conflict, land based air was quite effective even far out to sea, so I'm having a hard time grasping the rationale for reduced efficiency based on distance from the coast. I suppose you could make the argument that a greater number of sorties would be possible close to the coast, but even that does little to negate the historical success of Allied aircraft against U-boats in the Atlantic.

Well the rationale from my perspective is first what we have and why we have it. I am not a WW2 history buff, to say how accurate the representation in HOI4 or other HOI games is, was, or was not. But I do know that there needs to be some balance / artificial limitations placed on air power or they become economically superior doom swarms that break the realism / simulation aspects. Production costs to build navy is far greater than it is to build air force and if air power can cover all or most of the Atlantic (efficiently / effectively) then why build a navy? There has to be some disadvantage or counter weight that balances that out right?

HOI4 sort of does that by using the airbase the aircraft/force is operating from, the airzone it's operating in and the mission efficiency system to control the effectiveness of the air power. I'm fine with this approach, though obviously it could use some improvement as there are some flaws in it. But as it is implemented right now it doesn't allow many of the neighboring sea/air zones for coasts and islands to be protected like they were. Iberian Coast for example, but many of the islands as well.

Take for example the Eastern Micronesia air zone for Marshall, Wake and Phoenix islands. The USA Player operating out of either Phoenix Island or Wake Island has 14% (night) coverage for stock 1936 naval bombers. The stock 1944 naval bomber coverage for this air zone operating out of Wake Island is 21% and Phoenix Island is 16%.

Historically, I think Wake and Phoenix island were able to assess that trying to cover such a large area of sea efficiently was not practical. I imagine the air patrols were focused more on a perimeter around the islands for strong interdiction with some scouting / raiding. But with such horrible coverage, is it even worth trying to use air power? How can the defense of Wake or Phoenix island by air power be captured in any sort of historical / realism aspect, when you are forced to patrol such an impractical air/sea zone?

Whether you like the system or not, that is the current system we are dealing with, and that is where my rational/proposal originates from. So if the argument is a complete redesign of the system (or just throwing away air/sea zones completely), then we are talking about different things. My point was about improving/amending the current system, and I feel the coastal air/sea zones needs to kind of happen for that to change. If PDS thinks it's too much work and would rather replace the existing system, I'm good with that too and that would obviously change my suggestion.

Does that make it more clear as to my point / rationale for my suggestion?

 

[Dalwin]

I think you also miss the point on having airfields on Pacific islands. The main point to a field on Wake is not the defense of Wake itself. By itself it has nearly zero strategic importance. One does not even expect planes from Wake to stop any main battle fleet heading further east.

What one does wish from Wake is two things. You want it to be able to spot enemy fleets in a wide radius around itself so that your fleets can react. You want it to be able to attack effectively any small groups of ships or convoys within its reach. That includes attacking troop transports and also includes picking off any damaged ships which may be limping home. Certainly your planes will also attack larger fleets when found but you only expect minor damage from this. If you do manage to pick off a capital ship with such a raid you had a bit of luck.

Wake, however, is a lonely island in a relatively empty part of the ocean. This dynamic changes quite a bit when you get to the archipelagos further west.

 

[Sourlol]

Independent of adding new sea zones, I would like the ability to black list zones.

For example, the english channel. I should be able to select something on a ui when looking at the English Channel and blacklist it. This would force all convoys, all returning to port fleets, all troops moving around, everything. Unless specifically put on a patrol, S/D, Convoy raiding mission I don't want my forces in that zone.

Since seazones appear to be the only place with a physical logistics presence I should have more control over their movements.
(As is airplanes teleport and land supply routesdont have trucks or horses to lose, despite infra bombing, etc.).

 

[kettyo]

The one attack bug impacts fighting enemy warships when your own are also present. That is all it effects. There is no situation involving convoys in which the bug is greatly pertinent. Even a situation where both sides have warships and convoys are present usually involves the death of the convoys. If it does not then your planes get another chance to intercept the convoys as they continue to pass through the zone.

Biggest question here is then really why the one shot bug is still present. I guess it should be fairly easy to correct based on how well carrier planes operate. Should just compare the lines affecting their respective behaviours and correct what might cause the land planes frozen in ship to ship battles while carrier planes don't freeze, assuming they are controlled by similar rules.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Independent of adding new sea zones, I would like the ability to black list zones.

I would kill for this. Convoys tend to take the stupidest paths imaginable.

 

[Dalwin]

Biggest question here is then really why the one shot bug is still present. I guess it should be fairly easy to correct based on how well carrier planes operate. Should just compare the lines affecting their respective behaviours and correct what might cause the land planes frozen in ship to ship battles while carrier planes don't freeze, assuming they are controlled by similar rules.

Unfortunately that will not fix it. An aspect to this of which some players may not be aware is that if you give specific orders to your carrier planes instead of leaving them on auto then they too suffer from the one attack bug. It is only while you have not given them orders, when they are effectively just part of the ship and fighting what it fights, that CAGs get multiple attacks.

 

[kettyo]

Unfortunately that will not fix it. An aspect to this of which some players may not be aware is that if you give specific orders to your carrier planes instead of leaving them on auto then they too suffer from the one attack bug. It is only while you have not given them orders, when they are effectively just part of the ship and fighting what it fights, that CAGs get multiple attacks.

Ah, i did not know either but it makes sense so naval strike order itself has the issue, not land-based NAV.

PDX must know about it. I'm curious if it will be fixed or not. Kind of strange to recall the fleet to effectively use air.

 

[Dalwin]

Ah, i did not know either but it makes sense so naval strike order itself has the issue, not land-based NAV.

PDX must know about it. I'm curious if it will be fixed or not. Kind of strange to recall the fleet to effectively use air.

Some of the quirks with air missions in both the current and previous versions of HOI4 come down to the day night cycle. Somehow the time zone in which the units are based seems to be a factor. I am guessing that this means that the system does not check the planes every hour, that instead it does so only at certain points on the 24 hour clock (perhaps every 4 hours). This can mean the difference between one or two sorties a day if units are assigned to daylight operations only depending on their timezone. In this regard I am speaking of missions against land targets and not ships.

 

[kettyo]

Some of the quirks with air missions in both the current and previous versions of HOI4 come down to the day night cycle. Somehow the time zone in which the units are based seems to be a factor. I am guessing that this means that the system does not check the planes every hour, that instead it does so only at certain points on the 24 hour clock (perhaps every 4 hours). This can mean the difference between one or two sorties a day if units are assigned to daylight operations only depending on their timezone. In this regard I am speaking of missions against land targets and not ships.

Does day/night orders make any difference regarding naval strike during a naval battle? I always did day and night.

 

[Dalwin]

Does day/night orders make any difference regarding naval strike during a naval battle? I always did day and night.

As far as I know it does not make a difference in naval engagements. Then again I play almost exclusively MP. As a consequence, I am almost always too busy once a war starts to be watching individual engagements so closely.

 

[kettyo]

As far as I know it does not make a difference in naval engagements. Then again I play almost exclusively MP. As a consequence, I am almost always too busy once a war starts to be watching individual engagements so closely.

It is quite easy to check. I'll do.