Revised Air Combat

[Radu]

In HOI1 and 2, air combat is derived from land combat (for programming expediency no doubt,which is why I sympathize,but still...). This is wrong. Everything from the scale to combat dynamics are completely different for them to share the same "face-to-face" system. (don't even get me started about naval firing distance, a tactical feature in a grand strategy game)

Air Combat should be abstractized for the sake of systematic consistency.We should no more see squadrons battling than we should see individual battalions.

The player doesn't need to know that at hour H squadron X is in province Y just like the player doesn't need to know that at hour H a division's regiment has executed a fire mission.

Squadrons should have a base and range, and that's it as far as graphical representations go. We shouldn't see planes buzzing around and players shouldn't stand around babysitting their squadrons. Air units should be given a mission and a casualty threshold.

The player should receive reports of inflicted and sustained casualties,but it shouldn't be up to the player to manually disengage wings and other such micromanagement absurdities.

The missions should be the classic ones,with a few important modifications :

-Air Superiority : Two flavors, specific province or area.
-Ground Attack + Interdiction : Select a specific province (no more of letting the bombers decide for themselves) or support a given corps, meaning the planes enter battle when that unit attacks.
-Logistical Strike + Installation Strike + Strategic Bombardment + Convoy Bombardment + Naval Strike : These missions should again come in two flavors, either a specific province/seazone or an area.

Thus,in this abstractized environment,a lot of the awkwardness associated with brutally grafting wings on divisions and calling them squadrons are eliminated.

Air combat should only occur if of the two enemy air units that share the airspace of a single province at least one is on Air Superiority. Of course, IF it occurs is a big question. Everything from radar(with radar crucial if the mission is area-based),weather,time of day,doctrine,technology and leader skill/traits should affect the chances of the encounter,with the default being that the air combat will not take place. Prior to the full maturing of the 1st gen radars in the '40s the "Bombers will get through" line of thinking was actually very much grounded in reality.

Inflicted casualties by bombers on ground units should also be invertly exponential, meaning that air attacks on full-strength units should hurt, but bombers alone should never be able to completely wipe out divisions.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

I seem to be doing a great deal of linking to old threads these days...

 

[unmerged(122939)]

I like the way it works now... but that there are things that need a change yes... this would be my whish list:

1) Should take in count the speed of each unit for air combat (in real life speed means A LOT in any dogfight)... i.e. they should be no way that a pre-war biplane (like the PLZ.11) could intercept a late-war bomber (like the B-17G)... because the bomber is faster and can fly higher that the biplane... also applies to that a newer fighter must show an advantage when engaging with a older one... without a speed and altitude superiority is farly hard to be victorious
2) About ground attack and interdiction... as was said in other thread... there sould be some modifications... ground attack should aim ONLY to actually fighting enemy units and also made some org damage, been a 80-85% of the attack to strengh damage an the resting 20-25% to org attack... about interdiction something similar... but this time should engage only NON FIGHTING units... and do a 65-70% damage to org and a 30-35 to strengh
3) In naval strike mission they would also attack convoys, in case of detecting one, as this would be a target of opportunity... and also you should be able to spot naval forces in convoy strike mission... and I think there should be a message saying "We found a enemy convoy/fleet in x province" that would reflect the fact that naval bombers were more use for recon missions than actually attacking... also they should be ASW mission for naval bombers

and that is for now ... maybe later think something more

 

[Von Paulous]

I agree with El_Empanada.

Air combat is nice as it is.

All you need is to put the maximum speed of each plane in calculation of the outcome of air combat.(A bonus would come handy)

Maximum altidue is also a Very importand addition to Air unit stats.
I geuss that higher flying bombers should give enemy interceptors a great disadvantage....Or even be immune to interception.

Perhaps maximum range should affect Air combat outcome as well.

The more fuel an aircraft has... the more fuel costing manuvers it can perform.It can also chase away disengaging aircraft that have run out of fuel.

Something similar to the close Air base bonus that is already present in the game.

Radar technology should also come into play... especially in night combat.

There is a misleading hint that mentions this in HoI 2.(I think hint #79)

I think it should be implemented in HoI 3.

 

[Bobb4]

You are also missing pilot moral, fatigue and leader skill, all factors that must be taken into account in air combat.
What I would like to see is AI with a strategem, not just arbitary bombers flying into Germany to bomb Berlin just because they can.
Back to air battles, plane type including organisational and tactics research bonuses, plane specifications and above all a random surprise bonus. This could be linked to leader skill.
And intercepters should always target bombers first.
The only concern I have is as everything else has been upgrade so will air combat and this thread is premature.
But for the sake of clarity!!!!!! CAG's should be seperate units and not attachments to carriers!!!!!!!!

 

[Hebos.vU]

Air Combat should be abstractized for the sake of systematic consistency.We should no more see squadrons battling than we should see individual battalions...

I couldn't agree more. Abstract Air and Naval combat will reduce a lot of silly micromanagment and let the player focus on the land combat.

It is just silly to watch 20-stacks of Fighters flying around the map in a uncontrollable manner - missing the enemy 20-stack in the next province.

 

[Zwiback]

Aircombat is the part I really didn't like in HOI2.

As the original poster said, air combat uses basicly the same engine as land combat, which causes lots of problems.

First of all, the monster micromanagement to keep your air units attacking the right targets. You have to continuesly assigning new ground support missions in the east while you have defending Germany against bombers which will always find a way around the arbitrary regions you have set your always(!) flying interceptors and not to forget the southern front. Oh, then you have your nav bombers in France...

Now lets take this and have the new engine with 10000 provinces.

My main arguments against the "land combat" mode are:

- too much micromanagement and coordination
- impossibility to create an air control zone. This would be VERY important in the pacific war, which is pretty impossible as human now because it would need tons of nav bombers flying all the time to cover that area
- one hour increments which are much too long to cover air battles and nearly impossible without pause on contact to manage -> try to do that in MP

I am sure there are tons of good solutions to this current problem, but I really don't want to set every single mission in this theater.

 

[Sera]

I by and large agree with the OP, with some reservations. If HoI3 feature the same type of air and sea combat as it's prequel, I'd be sorely disappointed. Less micromanaging would be preferrable, just not to the point where those types of combat lose their flavour. Sea and air combat is vital to some countries and they should not be shortchanged with a system too abstracted to enjoy that aspect of the game.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

I couldn't agree more. Abstract Air and Naval combat will reduce a lot of silly micromanagment and let the player focus on the land combat.

It is just silly to watch 20-stacks of Fighters flying around the map in a uncontrollable manner - missing the enemy 20-stack in the next province.

We could also abstract land combat to be consequent. I mean ordering lotsa divisions around on the map, is that really what we want in a strategic wargame? Let's reduce the game to the ledger pages where all important info comes together

 

[Zwiback]

We could also abstract land combat to be consequent. I mean ordering lotsa divisions around on the map, is that really what we want in a strategic wargame? Let's reduce the game to the ledger pages where all important info comes together

Maybe abstracted is the wrong word.

I would even say that there should be actually more detail in air combat, like attrition losses of planes.

My understanding of "detail" is not that I am forced to change missions every 20 seconds, check tons of air units flying around or assigning missions to single provinces with combat lasting for max. of one minute there.

I want my air units assigned to HQ and carry out my orders automatically. If you have a moving front, they should assign CAS, Interdiction ect. according to my settings in the HQ menu. Also air units shouldnt get eliminated in air combat and also not in air 24/7.

So:

Detailed air forces : yes
High importance of air forces: yes
Assigning every single mission and keeping track of everything all the time: no

 

[Hebos.vU]

We could also abstract land combat to be consequent. I mean ordering lotsa divisions around on the map, is that really what we want in a strategic wargame? Let's reduce the game to the ledger pages where all important info comes together

Hehe, well then you have missed the point. Why abstract Air/Naval combat? Because the combat model is based upon land combat and hence not suitable to model Air/Naval combat. You should not abstract a model just because you can - you should abstract if the model becomes better doing so. An abstracted model doesn't have to be less attractive.

To me the Air combat model in HOI2 is just plain silly. For example: assume both UK and GER have 20 fighters in the vicinity of the English Channel. The UK player sends all his fighters on Air superiority mission to "guard" the channel region. Let's say the 20 units are organized in 5 stacks of 4 units. What will happen? The 5 stacks will not fly as a group and instead be spread out over the region. Then, all the German player has to do is base all his fighters in the same airbase and let them leave the airbase at the same hour - running into 1-2 of the UK stacks at the time => resulting in total destruction of the UK air force while the German air force are barely touched.

Above example can be used in many different situations making Air warfare a joke.

The same goes for naval combat. If you don't control your fleet movement with uttermost micromangement you risk to have it completly destroyed within hours (if you fail to manually retreat).

Land combat battles last longer and losing one will never mean your can't recover.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

Naval combat is one of the most interesting aspects in the HOI2 series to me. I rather want it improved than abstracted or reduced (same with air combat). You don't have to control it all manually all the time, you can just set fleets to patrol/interdict/raid convoys and use msg settings to get info about any engagement and jump to it.

And I don't see why naval/air combat or naval/airunit management should be reduced compared to land combat/land unit management, after all it is an important element of warfare, and was so in WWII.

 

[Hebos.vU]

It all depends what you want out of it. I want realistic combat models.

If an abstraction makes the model better it is an improvement to me.

 

[Zwiback]

And I don't see why naval/air combat or naval/airunit management should be reduced compared to land combat/land unit management, after all it is an important element of warfare, and was so in WWII.

Who said such a thing? Did anyone say here "hell, let's scrap air and naval combat". No the only thing I read was "a different model for these things".

But to answer why I think it should be changed: because one hour increments are in a land battle on corps/division basis completly acceptable, while they are not for naval/air battles with the current "land unit model used for air/sea" where one unlucky hour without micromanagement can lose your war.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I think a thing leading to missunderstanding is that the term abstracted means alot of different things for different people.

For some it just means, "to make it simpler"
For others it means remove all the units from the game entirely and "make it into statistics"
For me it means remove some visual units from the game and "make them work like convoys"
For me it means "reduce micromanagement and give us the option to automate them fully"

In an abstracted Air combat system for me we would still base a number of aircraft of different models at different bases. Then they would operate in all provinces within their range only.
Some visual clues could and should still be displayed even if we don't have separate airwing "divisions" flying around. Attacks on units could be a CAS animation over the province dropping bombs. Strategic could be a little strategic bomber animation. Visual clues to what is happeing is very important. But visual clues showing 1 airwing planes flying all over the place are just plain unnessecary.

Interception chance of bombers operating in a province of your airspace could be a function with how many mission ready air superiority aircraft within range that you have ready (say 100). Then a province radar, weather/daytime and leadership factor to determine how many will find their target, say they are 0.6 , 0.8 and 0.9. To determin the combat efficiency we also need the distance to the fighting zone, to make it easy the bombers are close enough for our fighters to not get any penalty in this example.

Now we have 100x0.6x0.8x0.9 = 43 fighters actually finding the enemy bombers. Or with doctrines for them to patroll in a single formation there could be a 43% chance for this formation to intercept.

Province radar would need to be developed, weather/daytime mauls researched away (onbord radars for example). And leadship could actually have some randomness into it but still be based on the skill of the man in charge.

Inflicted casualties by bombers on ground units should also be invertly exponential, meaning that air attacks on full-strength units should hurt, but bombers alone should never be able to completely wipe out divisions.

I agree 100%. This is one of the most important aspects of close air support, It exists as a support tool only and cannot get the job done by themselfs. Big concentrations of CAS should be able to reduce a division into a 10% strenght 0% org shadow of its former self, but not total annihilation.

Other important parts that I don't think have been mentioned here is CAGs and Airbases. CAGs should have their own strenght meter that needs to be replenished, if Carriers worked like in HoI2 Japan could have had 6 of them at Midway. I also wan't us to be able to attack airbases and inflict damage on the planes stationed there. This is risky in a HoI2 system where loosing a airwing means alot more IC lost, but not a problem at all in a more abstracted air combat system.

Scouting is another issue. Immensly important in the pacific warfare Id like to just base the aircraft on the island and let them scout seazones within their range automatically for enemy fleets. Granted we have enough fuel exc and we still have the option too choose their mission or have them in reserve if we want to interfere.

I want to "abstract" air warfare, but in the same time I want it much more complex, realistic and the option to automate alot of it. As the leader in charge I should have to worry about what airwings go to which base, and be able to let the leader there handle the execution of missions for them when I don't have the time.

Perhaps Abstact is the wrong word and "Revised" is much better.

But to answer why I think it should be changed: because one hour increments are in a land battle on corps/division basis completly acceptable, while they are not for naval/air battles with the current "land unit model used for air/sea" where one unlucky hour without micromanagement can lose your war.

One possibility here (that we are not likely to see until HoI4 or 5 though). Is to make naval and air combat a game in the game. Kind of how the total war series made field battles a big part of their game. You would zoom in and do a quick, but detailed 3d combat if you didn't like to let the game simulate it for you.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

I'm all for reducing micromanagement if it means making things more streamlined and user friendly, but if it means that the game becomes primarily centered around land warfare and treats naval/air combat not with the same importance then I'm not interested.

Abstracting air and esp naval stuff may look attractive if you play primarily big land powers as Ger or Sov, but for countries like UK, Ita or Jap it IMO takes away much of the fun (ok, depending what level of "abstracting" you have in mind).

 

[Radu]

I think the CAG=Air Units has been mentioned before,but for the sake of driving it home, yes : Carrier Air Groups should be air units in their own right with their own strength and capable of being routed or even wiped out.

 

[Zwiback]

Thanks Alex, very good post

 

[unmerged(122939)]

no no and no... I'm COMPLETELY against any abstraction in air combat... I think that the actual model need to be improved only for a better adaptation to how it was the air combat... there are some big points to take in count:

1) it need to take the speed of the units in count for the air combat (as I say before)
2) air power is completely underestimated, 200 CAS (equivalent to 2 wings) planes should have no problems in annihilating 2-3 or even more divisions in a couple of days... specially is they are armored ones... a tank is a fairly visible target, not so fast and pretty weak to air strikes, and 500 tanks should not be problem to 200 Il-2s or Typhoons and should not take more that a couple of hours to left no one operative (if the weather and the terrain helps)
3) radar and AA should have far more importance in the model... and not only be bonuses... the AA should be able to fire at any enemy airplane over the province, inflicting some damage, irrelevant if there is or not a air combat... and radar should be inclusive more important... taking the example of Hebos.vU, you have your 20 wings in air superiority mission... then the radar detect (and shows also in the map) the germans forces approaching (the radar should show every air unit at two province distance, or something like that)... then automatically ALL your units in mission in the area should gather in the province and give them a hell of a fight

specially points 2 and 3 should eliminate the problems that show Hebos.vU's example... because giving to air unit a more reallistic power that should keep you avoiding to concentrate all your fighter force to slowly destroy enemy's air force (that would mean leaving the enemy CAS free to strike hardly your groun forces)... and should also give the importance that radar have, more than a bonus for combat, than a measure to wisely use your forces

 

[Hebos.vU]

I'm all for reducing micromanagement if it means making things more streamlined and user friendly, but if it means that the game becomes primarily centered around land warfare and treats naval/air combat not with the same importance then I'm not interested.

That is not what we are saying. Once again - abstraction does not automatically make the game simpler, or for that matter, shift game focus to land combat.

For example, if you were able to visually see the working force in a country and had to move them around to different factories as you changed your production focus does not make it a better game. Instead it increase micromangement. Hence, the production model is not based on the land combat model and instead an abstracted production model is implemented that better simulates production.

A better model can reduce silly micromangement and let the player focus on the important aspect of strategy. Where should I deploy my Air force? What kind of mission should they run... etc etc