If i as germany have air superiority over britain, can british bombers still take off and bomb my factories in germany?
- 3
Question about air superiority
- Thread starter Kuling
- 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.
I think have heard something that air superiority over enemy airbases effect how often these aircrafts can undertake missions so having air superiority over enemy airbases can maybe ground the enemy airforce.
- 1
That is a wonderful question actually I don't think we know, @podcat if we have complete air superiority can bombers or fighters still make it into an air region and if so what's the penalty against them. Likewise what if we have bombed their airbases to oblivion, can they still take off?
- 3
I would like to know, if we can destroy enemy planes on the ground, but bombing their airbases.
@podcat ?
@podcat ?
You don't win air superiority and that's it, blocking planes from entering the air region. You have to maintain it. At any time the enemy air force can send new air wings into the region to contest the area. You can only stop them by shooting them down.
We had a long discussion about this (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...k-planes-passing-trough.909877/&sdpDevPosts=0) and the bottom line is:
- air fights only happen in the target region when the attacking force enters it (so not on takeoff and not in crossed regions, also not on the way back)
- air superiority over enemy's air fields does nothing to missions from there to other regions; there are always 2 missions per 24h (one day, one night); although this is ambiguous in the DD
- this is deep inside the concept and a result of the fact that planes's paths are not tracked
Also see DD7(https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-iron-iv-developer-diary-7-air-combat.788673/). Especially the note "intercept in depth? we don't care"). As for the Mission frequency, I assume the ambiguous formulas
"air superiority will affect how often the weaker side can carry out missions"
and
"actual missions [...] are flown twice a day"
refer to reduced Efficiency under enemy's airsuperiority rather than actual Mission amount. But that is a guess. Still, the "air superiority" most certainly refers to the target Region, not the Region of origin.
- air fights only happen in the target region when the attacking force enters it (so not on takeoff and not in crossed regions, also not on the way back)
- air superiority over enemy's air fields does nothing to missions from there to other regions; there are always 2 missions per 24h (one day, one night); although this is ambiguous in the DD
- this is deep inside the concept and a result of the fact that planes's paths are not tracked
Also see DD7(https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-iron-iv-developer-diary-7-air-combat.788673/). Especially the note "intercept in depth? we don't care"). As for the Mission frequency, I assume the ambiguous formulas
"air superiority will affect how often the weaker side can carry out missions"
and
"actual missions [...] are flown twice a day"
refer to reduced Efficiency under enemy's airsuperiority rather than actual Mission amount. But that is a guess. Still, the "air superiority" most certainly refers to the target Region, not the Region of origin.
Last edited:
- 3
So ( just assuming ), when enemy has air superiority of 75% over your region, then only 25% of your e.g. fighters can actually get off the ground.....if thats the case it would be awfully hard to regain the air superiority when only a quarter of your fighters can contest the AS ( and probably perpetually fighting in 2 vs.1 dogfights). Seems like a catch22 could develop...
That is not the case, meaning your air fields are not influenced. But it would be reasonable to assume you would first regain air superiority above your own bases instead of bombing the enemy. As it is now, this is not necessary.
In General, this is not how air superiority works. It does not affect your fighter performance, as this would be a snowball-effect (as you pointed out).
- 1
I hope that in a future patch, PDX will include some modification to air combat system.
In a first stage, it would be enough to remove the possibility to launch bombing missions from airbases an area where your enemy has the air superiority. At this point, what you have to do is to launch air superiority missions from those airbases, regain air superiority (or remove the enemy's one) in order to unlock bombing missions.
By the way, does someone of you know if there is a sort of "neutral air superiority" for the air regions? I mean, if in an air region disputed by Country A and Country B, A has a slightly higher air power with respect to B (let say A has 50,1% and B 49,9%), is the air superirority in that region of the country A or the difference should be greater?
In a first stage, it would be enough to remove the possibility to launch bombing missions from airbases an area where your enemy has the air superiority. At this point, what you have to do is to launch air superiority missions from those airbases, regain air superiority (or remove the enemy's one) in order to unlock bombing missions.
By the way, does someone of you know if there is a sort of "neutral air superiority" for the air regions? I mean, if in an air region disputed by Country A and Country B, A has a slightly higher air power with respect to B (let say A has 50,1% and B 49,9%), is the air superirority in that region of the country A or the difference should be greater?
The air superiority is a percentage-value as you put it. It is no integer. E.g., you need 75% to drop nukes. Just having the majority is not "enough". In your example, there would be no relevant effects in place.
Which pretty much mean less missions per day and may actually be even worse then just less mission depending if efficiency effect the combat stats of the aircrafts.
The Impact on the damage you do may be the same (e.g. 50% Efficiency vs. halfed mission amount). But it works differently. There are always two missions per day (unless one orders to fly only at night or day).
There are not always two missions per day. As well as ordering your wings not to fly during daylight or not at night, the weather can prevent you from flying a mission. In addition, bombers or interceptors might not have a target, so don't carry out a mission.
So, given that air wings might not carry out 14 missions per week then this statement by @Darkrenown from DD7
"air superiority will affect how often the weaker side can carry out missions"
Could just literally mean that bombers won't attempt to carry out as many missions, specifically that they might avoid daylight missions in good weather, if the enemy has air superiority.
But I don't see how that implies that bombers can't take off and carry out any missions within the region ever, that it applies to fighters, or that it applies to any planes based outside of the region. None of those things make any sense, because that's not what happened IRL. As Mr Meyer found out, you could never stop the bombers from getting through, even in a region where you have air superiority and is beyond the range of enemy fighters.
So, given that air wings might not carry out 14 missions per week then this statement by @Darkrenown from DD7
"air superiority will affect how often the weaker side can carry out missions"
Could just literally mean that bombers won't attempt to carry out as many missions, specifically that they might avoid daylight missions in good weather, if the enemy has air superiority.
But I don't see how that implies that bombers can't take off and carry out any missions within the region ever, that it applies to fighters, or that it applies to any planes based outside of the region. None of those things make any sense, because that's not what happened IRL. As Mr Meyer found out, you could never stop the bombers from getting through, even in a region where you have air superiority and is beyond the range of enemy fighters.
Yes, well. If you do not issue missions, sure they will no do any. But fact is, there is a base value of two missions per day. The efficiency of those missions is important, but is not relevant for the amount.
I introduced this Quote already and while it could mean that, it is a very ambiguos Statement, since, two lines later, it is stated that:"actual missions are flown twice a day". So in game-mechanic terms, at least to me it seems much more likely that weather and air superiority influences effiency, not the possibility to carry out missions. You may be able to give a threshold for Efficiency below which you do not want to fly. Either way, this is speculation.
No, it does not work that way. Even total air superiority over enemy air bases will not stop enemy Bombers from taking off and bombing any area they want to. And that is not plausible. To precisely state this: "stop" shall not mean that they are not allowed to start. It means that they should have to face resistance (which would be quite heavy given that one knows exactly where they are, they have to climb ...).
Please, for the love of god, do not do this again! We got rid of this myth (and this Quote) in the older thread I mentioned above. Bottom line is, that while you may not be able to stop each and every bomber from passing through your defence in depth, them taking no damage at all on their way (which is the case at the moment) is plain unrealistic. As it is now, only fighters stationed in the target region add to the bomber interception, none else. Neither in passed nor starting region. There could be thousands of fighters on the bombers' way in passed regions, they do not matter.
Claiming this is realistic?
Fighters flying over your air base, but you happily set off to bomb the enemy's Homeland?
Not caring getting domestic air superiority first?
Sir, please do not defend this. It is an abstraction we will have to live with at release, nothing more.
- 1
It's a game play mechanic decision. I like games that strive to be fun. This will be a fun game. --> Mods for the hardcore realists <--- Let vanilla be vanilla.
- 1
I agree with your Statement about game Play mechanic. We do not know which Problems path tracking could induce, and I tend to assume that PDS knows what they are doing. Still, it is a weakness and it is good we pointed at it.
But I think "hardcore realists" is far fetched. No need to be one to think this is a weakness. And I also fear this will not be moddable due to the basic lack of path tracking.
But.. any attempt to put this topic to a rest is welcome... so far have we come
.
Sorry yeah I don't mean hardcore realist as a bad thing. Just as a view point where emersion and realism trumps game play. Which doesn't seem to be the theme on this thread. And don't get me wrong. I love me my black ice. And I hope PDS or a modder finds a good solution to this problem. Cause its not an ideal mechanic as of now but it is what it is.