Hi, I'm Tornado. I play HOI4 and I also mod it. I mostly play multiplayer these days, though I dabble in single player and the modding scene. I enjoy Paradox's other titles too, mostly for the interesting strategy and choices they offer.
Today, I'm going to try to explain to you why air support and aircraft is broken in general, especially regarding the use of CAS from an IC trading standpoint with AA.
I'm not going to be talking down to you or expecting you to just believe me. I am going to provide hard evidence and an experiment as to why I am right with my assertions. I want to be constructive and provide an ironclad argument, so this horrendous problem can perhaps be fixed.
We're going to cover a few things here, one by one. I'll number them per-section so you can easily keep track. I'll try to hit on the short and sweet here to share my views while not making this impossibly long, but I still ask you to read a bit.
Sections:
We are going to be assuming that both sides want to win equally, are of equal skill, etc. Neither side is using generals, or land doctrine.
Germany gets to have fully upgraded CAS II with Junkers and the Dive Bomber advisor and full battlefield support. When I say fully upgraded, I mean level 5 in all upgradeable categories--Something that probably won't happen.
The Soviets are using 20 width infantry with AA 1 and will not be using an airforce.
Neither side is using other advisors.
We're going to engage in a month of continuous combat and compare losses from casualties and an IC standpoint, which leads me to my next point.
This applies to equipment and production. Every civilian factory focusing on repairs is not working on a military factory, and every military factory producing guns is not producing CAS, tanks, or artillery.
We lose out on one thing when we choose to focus on another.
So, what's the opportunity cost of building an airforce in HOI4?
Meanwhile, the Soviet player is just spamming one unit in a simplistic manner.
Here's the production cost of CAS vs AA. We can conclude that 1 CAS is worth about 6 AA.
'Meta' is simply the ideal strategy that players in a game environment will take to win. Ideally, the player that achieves mastery of the mechanics and a thorough understanding of the rules will achieve victory. If something is ideal, we should do it to win. Winning is the objective of a game, in most cases.
In \common\Hearts of Iron IV\Common\Defines, we find 00_defines.lua. This is a file that dictates many of the game's base mechanics and rules.
Within it, we find two defines that appear to guide the damage planes take from AA:
ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR = 0.8, -- Anti Air Gun Damage factor
ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_CHANCE = 0.1, -- Anti Air Gun hit chance
This makes sense. A comparison to last patch shows that they're the same... So what changed?
Let's look at the naval defines. In it, we're going to find two figures as of Waking the Tiger, last patch.
ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT = 0.005 in vanilla. Balancing value to convert equipment stat anti_air_attack to the random % value of airplanes being hit.
ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE = 0.07 Balancing value to convert averaged equipment stats (anti_air_targetting and naval_strike_agility) to probability chances of airplane being hit by navies AA.
How on earth are these two figures related?
Simple. As of last patch, the ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR and CHANCE defines were not working at all. They did nothing. Instead, ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT was the DAMAGE_FACTOR, and ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE was the DAMAGE_CHANCE--Despite being in the naval defines.
Even though ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR and PLANE_DAMAGE_CHANCE have not been changed, they have been 'fixed', so the AA damage actually draws from those defines now instead of the naval ones as of this patch. I unfortunately lost my testing data on how I figured this out, but long story short: You can revert and play around with those defines yourself. Turn up TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE to 0.90 and see what happens with CAS casualties.
This means that AA now has a 30% higher chance to hit, and does... a LOT more damage. My calculations come out to about 16000%, but that doesn't seem entirely true--The point is that CAS is taking more damage now. A hidden and seemingly unintentional buff.
EDIT:
See the end of page 2 and 3, apparently this define bug has STILL NOT BEEN fixed.
ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE = 0.2, -- Balancing value to convert averaged equipment stats (anti_air_targetting and naval_strike_agility) to probability chances of airplane being hit by navies AA.
ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT = 0.005, -- Balancing value to convert equipment stat anti_air_attack to the random % value of airplanes being hit.
These are the current defines--It looks like the problem is that ANTI-AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE was increased for some unknown reason and that's why it does more damage this patch.
I start out by training my air wings. The Soviet Union doesn't train their air wings; they aren't building planes. Germany loses about 70~ planes to air accidents in training.
GERMANY IC LOSSES: 24x71 = 1,704 military factory output lost.
SOVIET IC LOSSES: 0
Next, we start combat. We're just doing one battle here; we declare war and fight for a month. We have total, uncontested air superiority as our 1,600 CAS soar overhead, given every possible advantage we can afford them in the game's mechanics.
We have the infantry fight for a month, simulating a single battle going on. 3 tiles attacking one tile.
What are our results?
From ONE battle on ONE tile lasting ONE month...
The Soviets lost about 12~ AA
Germany lost about 136 CAS.
This is with the most basic AA 1 you can research. In a SUPPORT capacity--There's no line AA.
Germany didn't do more casualties despite uncontested air superiority and super-CAS.
In total, considering training and the dive-bombing, Germany lost about...
(136+71)x24 = 4,968 IC
The Soviets lost about...
12x4 = 48 IC, and that's not even to the dive bombers. I guess you can count the guns if you want; it doesn't even come close to closing the gap.
What if there's 10 battles going on? Multiply by ten.
In short, the entirety of Germany's CAS stockpile can be annihilated by using nothing but Anti Air and not a single plane on your side.
And what about air superiority? Sure, it gives a defensive buff--But that doesn't really matter here. The sheer amount of IC saved means the Soviets can pump out about 7+ more infantry templates than Germany can to create an impenetrable wall of meat, because all of the German airforce is being shredded and creating a black hole of industry for Germany.
They're going to lose this war despite Stalin not building a single piece of aircraft--A total absurdity, especially considering Germany invested so heavily.
1. CAS is not really worth it to build, ever. It dies at a horrendous ratio to enemy anti air.
2. Generally speaking, aircraft is not worth it to build for the purpose of supporting your troops--You should just build more units instead and try to brute force. If you build air, you do it for strategic bombing or supporting your ships.
3. The AI does not understand how to use the tools available to it, and should not be used as a metric for balance testing.
4. AA needs a serious nerf. I suggest a value lower than WTT's naval values, as even those were still high and created an insanely out of proportion trading situation, though not as bad as what we see here.
5. Future changes and balance adjustments need to start happening from mathematical and statistical analysis and testing--Not from 'eyeballing it' or a vague idea.
HOI4 should be about combined arms and exploring every facet of the game to succeed, not about spamming nothing but anti air to mitigate the enemy's air force. Not only is this ahistorical, it's bland.
Thank you for reading, and please share your thoughts.
Today, I'm going to try to explain to you why air support and aircraft is broken in general, especially regarding the use of CAS from an IC trading standpoint with AA.
I'm not going to be talking down to you or expecting you to just believe me. I am going to provide hard evidence and an experiment as to why I am right with my assertions. I want to be constructive and provide an ironclad argument, so this horrendous problem can perhaps be fixed.
We're going to cover a few things here, one by one. I'll number them per-section so you can easily keep track. I'll try to hit on the short and sweet here to share my views while not making this impossibly long, but I still ask you to read a bit.
Sections:
1. Assumptions
2. Opportunity Cost and the meaning of 'Meta'
3. What Changed from Last Patch?
4. Experiment
5. Conclusions
1. Assumptions
We are going to be judging aircraft from the perspective of land-based support. We are not considering strategic bombers or tactical bombers hitting buildings, that's a different ballgame.2. Opportunity Cost and the meaning of 'Meta'
3. What Changed from Last Patch?
4. Experiment
5. Conclusions
1. Assumptions
We are going to be assuming that both sides want to win equally, are of equal skill, etc. Neither side is using generals, or land doctrine.
Germany gets to have fully upgraded CAS II with Junkers and the Dive Bomber advisor and full battlefield support. When I say fully upgraded, I mean level 5 in all upgradeable categories--Something that probably won't happen.
The Soviets are using 20 width infantry with AA 1 and will not be using an airforce.
Neither side is using other advisors.
We're going to engage in a month of continuous combat and compare losses from casualties and an IC standpoint, which leads me to my next point.
2. Opportunity Cost and the Meaning of 'Meta'
Opportunity cost is the idea that whenever you do one thing, you lose out on doing another thing. If you go Superior Firepower, you cannot do Grand Battleplan.
This applies to equipment and production. Every civilian factory focusing on repairs is not working on a military factory, and every military factory producing guns is not producing CAS, tanks, or artillery.
We lose out on one thing when we choose to focus on another.
So, what's the opportunity cost of building an airforce in HOI4?
- We need to research planes.
- We need to research air doctrine.
- We need to research radar.
- We need to do focuses for aircraft and air doctrine.
- We need to produce planes of all kinds
- We need to spend political power on companies and potentially advisors to make full use of our air.
That's quite a bit. What about building AA?- We need to research air doctrine.
- We need to research radar.
- We need to do focuses for aircraft and air doctrine.
- We need to produce planes of all kinds
- We need to spend political power on companies and potentially advisors to make full use of our air.
- We need to research AA, something a lot of countries start with and is just one cheap research
- We need to produce AA
- We probably need to get military advisors, something we were going to do anyway.
Across the board, the opportunity cost of AA is far lower. In our situation, the Germany player is sacrificing quite a bit to get his aircraft; he is building far fewer tanks and infantry than he could otherwise to get planes up. The German player is attempting to engage with the mechanics the game offers to the fullest.- We need to produce AA
- We probably need to get military advisors, something we were going to do anyway.
Meanwhile, the Soviet player is just spamming one unit in a simplistic manner.
Here's the production cost of CAS vs AA. We can conclude that 1 CAS is worth about 6 AA.
'Meta' is simply the ideal strategy that players in a game environment will take to win. Ideally, the player that achieves mastery of the mechanics and a thorough understanding of the rules will achieve victory. If something is ideal, we should do it to win. Winning is the objective of a game, in most cases.
3. What changed from the last patch?
Even if it doesn't look like it on the surface, things have changed since last patch, Waking the Tiger.
In \common\Hearts of Iron IV\Common\Defines, we find 00_defines.lua. This is a file that dictates many of the game's base mechanics and rules.
Within it, we find two defines that appear to guide the damage planes take from AA:
ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR = 0.8, -- Anti Air Gun Damage factor
ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_CHANCE = 0.1, -- Anti Air Gun hit chance
This makes sense. A comparison to last patch shows that they're the same... So what changed?
Let's look at the naval defines. In it, we're going to find two figures as of Waking the Tiger, last patch.
ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT = 0.005 in vanilla. Balancing value to convert equipment stat anti_air_attack to the random % value of airplanes being hit.
ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE = 0.07 Balancing value to convert averaged equipment stats (anti_air_targetting and naval_strike_agility) to probability chances of airplane being hit by navies AA.
How on earth are these two figures related?
Simple. As of last patch, the ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR and CHANCE defines were not working at all. They did nothing. Instead, ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT was the DAMAGE_FACTOR, and ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE was the DAMAGE_CHANCE--Despite being in the naval defines.
Even though ANTI_AIR_PLANE_DAMAGE_FACTOR and PLANE_DAMAGE_CHANCE have not been changed, they have been 'fixed', so the AA damage actually draws from those defines now instead of the naval ones as of this patch. I unfortunately lost my testing data on how I figured this out, but long story short: You can revert and play around with those defines yourself. Turn up TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE to 0.90 and see what happens with CAS casualties.
This means that AA now has a 30% higher chance to hit, and does... a LOT more damage. My calculations come out to about 16000%, but that doesn't seem entirely true--The point is that CAS is taking more damage now. A hidden and seemingly unintentional buff.
EDIT:
See the end of page 2 and 3, apparently this define bug has STILL NOT BEEN fixed.
ANTI_AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE = 0.2, -- Balancing value to convert averaged equipment stats (anti_air_targetting and naval_strike_agility) to probability chances of airplane being hit by navies AA.
ANTI_AIR_ATTACK_TO_AMOUNT = 0.005, -- Balancing value to convert equipment stat anti_air_attack to the random % value of airplanes being hit.
These are the current defines--It looks like the problem is that ANTI-AIR_TARGETTING_TO_CHANCE was increased for some unknown reason and that's why it does more damage this patch.
4. Experiment
For today's experiment, we're going to do a basic microcosm of combat on the Eastern Front and compare IC losses. Then we're going to theoretically apply this on a grand scale and see what happens.
I start out by training my air wings. The Soviet Union doesn't train their air wings; they aren't building planes. Germany loses about 70~ planes to air accidents in training.
GERMANY IC LOSSES: 24x71 = 1,704 military factory output lost.
SOVIET IC LOSSES: 0
Next, we start combat. We're just doing one battle here; we declare war and fight for a month. We have total, uncontested air superiority as our 1,600 CAS soar overhead, given every possible advantage we can afford them in the game's mechanics.
We have the infantry fight for a month, simulating a single battle going on. 3 tiles attacking one tile.
What are our results?
From ONE battle on ONE tile lasting ONE month...
The Soviets lost about 12~ AA
Germany lost about 136 CAS.
This is with the most basic AA 1 you can research. In a SUPPORT capacity--There's no line AA.
Germany didn't do more casualties despite uncontested air superiority and super-CAS.
In total, considering training and the dive-bombing, Germany lost about...
(136+71)x24 = 4,968 IC
The Soviets lost about...
12x4 = 48 IC, and that's not even to the dive bombers. I guess you can count the guns if you want; it doesn't even come close to closing the gap.
What if there's 10 battles going on? Multiply by ten.
In short, the entirety of Germany's CAS stockpile can be annihilated by using nothing but Anti Air and not a single plane on your side.
And what about air superiority? Sure, it gives a defensive buff--But that doesn't really matter here. The sheer amount of IC saved means the Soviets can pump out about 7+ more infantry templates than Germany can to create an impenetrable wall of meat, because all of the German airforce is being shredded and creating a black hole of industry for Germany.
They're going to lose this war despite Stalin not building a single piece of aircraft--A total absurdity, especially considering Germany invested so heavily.
5. Conclusions
Given the evidence, we can reach some easy conclusions:
1. CAS is not really worth it to build, ever. It dies at a horrendous ratio to enemy anti air.
2. Generally speaking, aircraft is not worth it to build for the purpose of supporting your troops--You should just build more units instead and try to brute force. If you build air, you do it for strategic bombing or supporting your ships.
3. The AI does not understand how to use the tools available to it, and should not be used as a metric for balance testing.
4. AA needs a serious nerf. I suggest a value lower than WTT's naval values, as even those were still high and created an insanely out of proportion trading situation, though not as bad as what we see here.
5. Future changes and balance adjustments need to start happening from mathematical and statistical analysis and testing--Not from 'eyeballing it' or a vague idea.
HOI4 should be about combined arms and exploring every facet of the game to succeed, not about spamming nothing but anti air to mitigate the enemy's air force. Not only is this ahistorical, it's bland.
Thank you for reading, and please share your thoughts.
Attachments
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
