When will something be done about the ludicrous number of planes the AI deploys?

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Stellaris's Command Points mechanism is something that might be useful if adapted to HOI4. Some limitation on the amount of aircraft that can be operated simultaneously, due to limitations on crew training etc.

Which is why game has airfields.

 

[PrussianTiger]

Which is why game has airfields.

This too is part of the problem but less so than the ability to field/deploy so many planes. This only represents parking space and handling equipment not material requirements for actually having so many planes.

 

[safe-keeper]

I suspect the issue comes from all aircraft being available for operations all of the time (and also having much lower accident/breakdown rates than historically) - so it's possible for the net number of aircraft built to be substantially lower than historical figures, but the net number of aircraft deployed being far higher. So, for example, the Luftwaffe had 2,000-3,000 aircraft for the Battle of Britain, on the most intense day (according to my super-basic Googling - so I could be off, but I'm confident the general idea is on the money) only 850 sorties were flown, and that was the most intense day. So in a HoI4 Battle of Britain, most of those aircraft are over Britain or the Channel all of the time, whereas historically, only a small fraction of them are, with the rest being repaired or serviced in-between operations.

It's also worth keeping in mind that those 850 sorties weren't 24-hour missions - so on any given hour, the number of aircraft being deployed by the Luftwaffe would have been less again.

I'm no expert in things air though, so I might be off - but I imagine that sorting this out would require at least some mechanical changes. The best I can think of (that doesn't involve insane levels of micro) would be to have two settings for air operations - normal and surge. Normal allows maybe 20 per cent of available aircraft to actually fly at any time, while surge might push that up to 40-50 per cent, but it can only be done for a short period of time. There perhaps should be different percentage for intercept vs the rest of the missions as well. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it though, so it could well be a rubbish idea. It also creates the situation of an enemy surging and a player not being aware of it in time to do anything about it (but this could potentially be handled by intercept missions having a higher base percentage, and perhaps no surge set-up - so that interception is a natural 'surge' counter?) Either way, it does add some mechanical and UI complexity to a game that's already got plenty happening.

Yes. I play with the idea that it'd be way better for gameplay, and perhaps also performance, if planes flew sorties instead of just always being present in their assigned air zone. Having a limited pool of trained pilots could be another good limiter to aircraft.

I do like the idea of only some planes in an air wing getting to fly at any given time, though. Perhaps air wings could even have organisation like divisions.

Wasn't everyone complaining the AI is too dumb and the game too easy? Now you request the exact opposite: to make the AI dumber?

I also made the mistake of ignoring subs in a Germany run, you learn in the process something about history: what the Germans were trying to accomplish. A lot of texts say they were trying to literally starve the UK which is stupid, as if the British didn't know how to plant and cook potatoes... In fact they were trying to "starve" the UK from oil and bauxite. And we learn that if they had succeded it would have changed the war.

As for the number itself, I'm pretty sure the USA could field more than 7k fighters in any airzone it wanted, so it is not totally nuts, although real life UK had a slower production than in the game. But real life UK built tons of tanks while the AI barely builds any as the UK.

Raid their convey, cut their oil import sources, their planes would then become useless.

Whether or not you ruin their supply, just put 8000 up?


No matter who you're playing, you should have a sizeable airforce. Especially as Germany.

AI is trash and it's not hard to overcome their fighter spam with your own, of superior planes.

Also it's better for them to have so many active planes because it's another thing they need to waste fuel on.

No one is complaining about not being able to beat the enemy's air force, or the AI being too smart. If you re-read the OP (it's not long), they complain about the unrealistically high number of planes being deployed simultaneously.

Which is why game has airfields.

Which don't come close to addressing the issue as you can still field thousands of airplanes at the same time.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Yes. I play with the idea that it'd be way better for gameplay, and perhaps also performance, if planes flew sorties instead of just always being present in their assigned air zone. Having a limited pool of trained pilots could be another good limiter to aircraft.

I do like the idea of only some planes in an air wing getting to fly at any given time, though. Perhaps air wings could even have organisation like divisions.




No one is complaining about not being able to beat the enemy's air force, or the AI being too smart. If you re-read the OP (it's not long), they complain about the unrealistically high number of planes being deployed simultaneously.


Which don't come close to addressing the issue as you can still field thousands of airplanes at the same time.

Prove that it is unrealistically high.

I have evidence it isn't:

The UK was able to field 1 thousand strat bombers in 1 mission, bombing 1 city several times during the war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-bomber_raids

So why not 7k over an entire airzone?

 

[Harin]

Prove that it is unrealistically high.

I have evidence it isn't:

The UK was able to field 1 thousand strat bombers in 1 mission, bombing 1 city several times during the war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-bomber_raids

So why not 7k over an entire airzone?

I used to think that you could stack almost an unlimited number of planes in an airspace. It seems common sense, the sky is the limit, right? But when you put some math to it, you realize that it is not so.

Take that 1,000 plane bomber raid. Each bomber group of 40 to 50 bombers must be separated by a safe distance from the next bomber group in front. Flying just 180mph and giving just a 60 second safe space, means that each bomber group must be 3 miles away from each other, or there is a high risk of running into friendly planes. Even with the 60 second safety margin, almost every large bombing raid lost bombers from running into each other. Those losses were accepted though, because to give much longer safety margins you could literally run out of the "sky road" to the target, meaning bombers would be left on the runway waiting to take off, as the first bombers are dropping bombs. In that situation, might as well just launch two different raids.

The sky has limits, who knew?

In real life those 1,000 plane bomber raids were hundreds of miles long. When the first bombs were falling on the German city, bombers in the tail end of the raid were still flying over the Netherlands. It took hours for those raids to fly over a static spot on the ground.

The sky is tall, right? Why not stack bombers vertically? Not a bad idea, but when do you do it? If the bombers are going to operate at 15,000 feet, then much of the airspace below the 15,000 feet is unusable while bombers are taking off. Those bombers need that 15,000 feet to climb. You cannot operate formations of hundreds, let alone a thousand planes, and let them all fly where every they want. Each bomber group needs that safety space around it as it climbs, and then the larger flying space as it flies to the target.

If planes were helicopters, then maybe we could stack planes like crazy, but planes move in one direction; forward. They cannot move sideways, up, down, etc... Only forwards, and from there climb, descend, and/or turn. That limitation means that even one plane eats up a huge airspace, let alone one bomber group or one bomber raid.

Fighters are not limited to such nonsense, right? We have all seen the movies. They fly in every direction and do it quickly. It is an illusion. I remember hearing of a fighter pilot who described air battles as a ,"knife fight in a phone booth." I have no idea what it is like in reality, but fighters run out of air to fight in, especially when there are dozens or hundreds of planes involved. It may be a reason, the main tactic of the top aces was to zoom in with lots of energy and use that energy to zoom right back out again. The air space is limited and you do not want to get caught in it. Do your damage quickly and get out.

 

[PrussianTiger]

I used to think that you could stack almost an unlimited number of planes in an airspace. It seems common sense, the sky is the limit, right? But when you put some math to it, you realize that it is not so.

Take that 1,000 plane bomber raid. Each bomber group of 40 to 50 bombers must be separated by a safe distance from the next bomber group in front. Flying just 180mph and giving just a 60 second safe space, means that each bomber group must be 3 miles away from each other, or they will there is a high risk of running into friendly planes. Even with the 60 second safety margin, almost every large bombing raid lost bombers from running into each other. Those losses were accepted though, because to give much longer safety margins, you could literally run out of the "sky road" to the target, meaning bombers would be left on the runway waiting to take off, as the first bombers are dropping bombs. In that situation, might as well just launch two different raids.

The sky has limits, who knew?

In real life those 1,000 plane bomber raids were hundreds of miles long. When the first bombs were falling on the German city, bombers in the tail end of the raid were still flying over the Netherlands. It took hours for those raids to fly over a static spot on the ground.

The sky is tall, right? Why not stack bombers vertically? Not a bad idea, but when do you do it? If the bombers are going to operate at 15,000 feet, then much of the airspace below the 15,000 feet is unusable while bombers are taking off. Those bombers need that 15,000 feet to climb. You cannot operate formations of hundreds, let alone a thousand planes, and let them all fly where every they want. Each bomber group needs that safety space around it as it climbs, and then the larger flying space as it flies to the target.

If planes were helicopters, then maybe we could stack planes like crazy, but planes move in one direction; forward. They cannot move sideways, up, down, etc... Only forwards, and from there climb, descend, and/or turn. That limitation means that even one plane eats up a huge airspace, let along one bomber group or one bomber raid.

Fighters are not limited to such nonsense, right? We have all seen the movies. They fly in every direction and do it quickly. It is an illusion. I remember hearing of a fighter pilot who described air battles as a ,"knife fight in a phone booth." I have no idea what it is like in reality, but fighters run out of air to fight in, especially when there are dozens or hundreds of planes involved. It may be a reason, the main tactic of the top aces was to zoom in with lots of energy and use that energy to zoom right back out again. The air space is limited and you do not want to get caught in it. Do your damage quickly and get out.

And the thousand bomber raids he linked to, there were just three of them during the course of the war.

 

[safe-keeper]

Prove that it is unrealistically high.

Already been done in this thread. Go back and re-read.

 

[safe-keeper]

And the thousand bomber raids he linked to, there were just three of them during the course of the war.

Yeah, the Wiki article itself makes it clear those raids were super-rare exceptions, and not the norm. I could elaborate, but it's all there in the article, so no need, really.

 

[PrussianTiger]

I found this interesting tidbit.

Yeah, the Wiki article itself makes it clear those raids were super-rare exceptions, and not the norm. I could elaborate, but it's all there in the article, so no need, really.

One of my friends dug up that during the production course of the Spitfire(Ending in 1947 if memory serves.) a total of 20,000 aircraft were produced.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

This too is part of the problem but less so than the ability to field/deploy so many planes. This only represents parking space and handling equipment not material requirements for actually having so many planes.

Material requirements are represented by resources and factories. Point was: adding new mechanics, that address the same issue as already existing ones, only serves to overcomplicate the game.

 

[PrussianTiger]

Material requirements are represented by resources and factories. Point was: adding new mechanics, that address the same issue as already existing ones, only serves to overcomplicate the game.

The current system is inadequate and unrealistic. And it doesn't have to complicate things depending upon how it's implemented.

 

[Secret Master]

I don't have issue with them deploying a lot of planes, but over 7000 in southern England is ludicrous.

I have to ask what year this is.

I can't recall the AI every putting 7000 planes over southern England in 1940.

Stellaris's Command Points mechanism is something that might be useful if adapted to HOI4. Some limitation on the amount of aircraft that can be operated simultaneously, due to limitations on crew training etc.

I have to disagree here.

The only limitations on aircraft usage should be pilots, fuel, planes, and airfields.

Now, I might be persuaded that aircraft reliability is too high, resulting in far fewer non-combat losses. I might also be persuaded that the current implementation of pilots (that is, just an XP rating for the wing) is insufficient to model what was really happening. But some kind of Command Points system would feel arbitrary.

Yes. I play with the idea that it'd be way better for gameplay, and perhaps also performance, if planes flew sorties instead of just always being present in their assigned air zone.

But.... they do fly sorties.

Air combat - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

The planes fly at 0800, 1600, and 2400 every day. Whether those times count as day or night combat depend on geographic location and time of year.

 

[PrussianTiger]

I have to ask what year this is.

I can't recall the AI every putting 7000 planes over southern England in 1940.

It was 1945, but this is no excuse for having that many aircraft on active combat duty.

 

[Deliberus]

Simple

Nothing will be done as it's designed to prevent the player from cheesing the AI

Because back in the day the AI only deployed units on nearby borders and those that they're at war with. Meaning players could simply break through enemy lines and drive towards the Victory Points or have paratroopers just drop down on them. So the developers adjusted this in later expansions (Waking the Tiger was it?) by just telling the AI to spam out as many units as possible. But then the AI didn't have enough materials from front line troops and so it was decided that the should simply spam factories on only the most important equipment it needed.

 

[PrussianTiger]

Simple

Nothing will be done as it's designed to prevent the player from cheesing the AI

Because back in the day the AI only deployed units on nearby borders and those that they're at war with. Meaning players could simply break through enemy lines and drive towards the Victory Points or have paratroopers just drop down on them. So the developers adjusted this in later expansions (Waking the Tiger was it?) by just telling the AI to spam out as many units as possible. But then the AI didn't have enough materials from front line troops and so it was decided that the should simply spam factories on only the most important equipment it needed.

This is just laziness, there are ways to make it happen that also affect the player.

 

[Deliberus]

This is just laziness, there are ways to make it happen that also affect the player.

I dunno, maybe if paradox carried over the previous supply system from HOI3 it would actually work but I guess that was too complex for new players so they just said fuck it...

 

[PrussianTiger]

I dunno, maybe if paradox carried over the previous supply system from HOI3 it would actually work but I guess that was too complex for new players so they just said fuck it...

Yeah, but nothing was as nightmarish as the HQ system from HOI3.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

he current system is inadequate and unrealistic. And it doesn't have to complicate things depending upon how it's implemented.

Anything on top of existing systems will complicate things, if only because AI will also need to be adapted to it. Guess how well it was adapted to MtG? Hell, it's only starting to grasp division designer (and that's 1.0 feature).

 

[Simon_9732495]

In my opinion the number of airplanes in a zone is not a problem at all.

Maybe something could be done about having 2000 planes flying from an airport of a tiny island...
But battle of britain with huge numbers... I dont mind at all. It's even something I like.

And the argument "historical"... It's 1945. Why would Germany care about the number of planes over southern England. They fight the last battles on german soil. The war is lost. The air war was lost many years ago.

 

[PrussianTiger]

In my opinion the number of airplanes in a zone is not a problem at all.

Maybe something could be done about having 2000 planes flying from an airport of a tiny island...
But battle of britain with huge numbers... I dont mind at all. It's even something I like.

And the argument "historical"... It's 1945. Why would Germany care about the number of planes over southern England. They fight the last battles on german soil. The war is lost. The air war was lost many years ago.

This was not a standard historical game, France did not ally with Britain only Czechoslovakia. Then events precluded doing anything else as far as the big war before then. And also by this point the Allies were at war with both the Comintern and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Plus as a bonus I had tweaked my static modifiers to boost production and I had still only been able to produce around 10,000 aircraft of all types by this point. It's a broken system and needs fixed.