Wishes for Air Combat in expansion

[jju_57]

To get air superiority to work you pick an enemy air base and use the mission over that base. Otherwise use intercept missions to target planes flying over larger territories. Besides why use air superiority to do what intercept was meant for and the bonus given to intercept missions?

 

[SirDraco]

SirDraco I suggested two as the first is a defensive tech while the other is offensive. Each
would have a slowly increasing benefit. I do agree that there should be an air (and naval)
chain of command. I posted a couple weeks ago that i set up a theatre command in the UK
to handle all my aircraft only and assigned it 5-6 airfields soley for its use (with no ground
units so I had to manually put troops in to defend them if needed). it worked quite well.

Yeah I saw that and am actually using it in my Great Britain game. Works pretty well except for the fact that you end up with dog fights over France, but not much can be done about that, unless you stick air to defensive, but then I'm assuming that Bombers won't do their job. What would be nice would be if you could set Fighters to defensive and Bombers to offensive.

Back to the main point though. I think we could probably combine both ideas, so that you have to research Commands/Chain of command tech and then that splits into Fighter and Bomber (Might as well throw Coastal Command in there too) for specific focusing.

 

[lp60068]

I agree with the OP points.

I think the training and experience impacts need to be changed.
Historically the Luftwaffe had serious problems with training in WW2 - (interesting link http://www.caselab.okstate.edu/ocharle/projects/lf.html ) and while we can crank out an interceptor in 110 days in the game, realistically you should get an inexperienced unit that is marginally effective. From the link:
The highest scoring pilot in the world, Erich Hartmann, talks of the replacement pilots he received into his Luftwaffe squadron. ``I get young men coming to my squadron in Russia with less than sixty hours' total flying time, and only twenty hours of that in the Me-109. They have to fly combat with such slender training. This accounts for most of our Eastern Front fighter losses... They can barely get the Me-109 up and back safely as it is, without fighting''

Maybe extend air unit production time to something similar to CAGs and give us a rush mode where we can crank out inexperienced units in short time periods.
Air units should also gain experience faster and unit experience should be a larger factor in air combat.

Even with training laws maximized and great practicals - there should be a limit to how fast you can get quality pilots.

 

[Corner79]

I agree with the OP points.

I think the training and experience impacts need to be changed.
Historically the Luftwaffe had serious problems with training in WW2 - (interesting link http://www.caselab.okstate.edu/ocharle/projects/lf.html ) and while we can crank out an interceptor in 110 days in the game, realistically you should get an inexperienced unit that is marginally effective. From the link:
The highest scoring pilot in the world, Erich Hartmann, talks of the replacement pilots he received into his Luftwaffe squadron. ``I get young men coming to my squadron in Russia with less than sixty hours' total flying time, and only twenty hours of that in the Me-109. They have to fly combat with such slender training. This accounts for most of our Eastern Front fighter losses... They can barely get the Me-109 up and back safely as it is, without fighting''

Maybe extend air unit production time to something similar to CAGs and give us a rush mode where we can crank out inexperienced units in short time periods.
Air units should also gain experience faster and unit experience should be a larger factor in air combat.

Even with training laws maximized and great practicals - there should be a limit to how fast you can get quality pilots.

There could be an air officer ration separate from the the normal officer ration that represents seasoned veterans. Each nation can have a starting figure (based on starting date bias) and based on how they do in battles it will go up or down. High ratios would grant a bonus to air combat. It certainly would be interesting because "green" pilots in both Germany and in Japan definitely had an outcome on the war.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

To get air superiority to work you pick an enemy air base and use the mission over that base. Otherwise use intercept missions to target planes flying over larger territories. Besides why use air superiority to do what intercept was meant for and the bonus given to intercept missions?

Intercept mission is good if you care little about what enemy does or you defending somewhere deep in your territory against occasional invasions or enemy targets close to your bases. Otherwise it takes time to arrive and if enemy is fast it is too late. With Air Superiority you should basicaly put your fighters to secure area being able faster to reast at more fuel and supplies expense.

When I used to play some fighter simulators Air Superiority was not just hovering above airbase. However, in this game it is almost the only use of it.

 

[SirDraco]

Maybe extend air unit production time to something similar to CAGs and give us a rush mode where we can crank out inexperienced units in short time periods.
Air units should also gain experience faster and unit experience should be a larger factor in air combat.

Even with training laws maximized and great practicals - there should be a limit to how fast you can get quality pilots.

I like this idea. It would hopefully mean that a smaller, better trained air force could beat a bigger, less trained air force.

There could be an air officer ration separate from the the normal officer ration that represents seasoned veterans

If they did do that, I would like to see the ability to give a nation your own air officers, when put into use they would show as Expeditionary Forces but be in the controller nations aircraft. Like what was pointed out earlier, during the Battle of Britain, the RAF used pilots from all over the Commonwealth as well as other Allied Nations (Poland especially), even a few yanks.

 

[Alex_brunius]

What I would like to see to fix the problem of training is a separate pool or percentage for pilots training, working much like officers.


You would invest (via a new silder) leadership, supplies and a significant amounts of fuel in order to train pilots.

If you have 30 Airwings you would need 3000 "pilots training" to get say a baseline 15% experience airunits. If you get 6000 "pilot training" this effect is abstracted as your pilots had twice as much training and reinforcements are instead at 30% experience.

The cap should probably be around 30-45% max and it could also effect organisation of air units instead of officers doing this (but probably not linear over 100%), anything over this provides a reserve buffer against casualties.


For each strength lost in an airwing some amount is removed from the pool. This amount could be increased if fighting over hostile territory or over seas.

A nation that can't afford to spend fuel on training will quickly end up with 100% strength but 0-5% experience airwings after reinforcing through heavy aircombat, regardless of what experience level they were at before.

 

[jeffreys14b]

This is definitely the area of the game I'd most like improved. Lots of great ideas here to do that.

Regarding pilot training and shortages, it could be handled like supplies. Instead using leadership, use IC to simulate large training operations that would build a pool of pilots just like your pool of supplies. Why use IC? Because I don't want to choose between pilots and research.

EDIT to add one more wish --

The intercept mission should prevent air units from chasing enemies out of their assigned area.

 

[Secret Master]

When I used to play some fighter simulators Air Superiority was not just hovering above airbase. However, in this game it is almost the only use of it.

That's because of how the game handles the movement of aircraft. They "teleport" to the next province based on speed. Fast planes may teleport several provinces in an hour on their way to a target. This renders air superiority missions between enemy airfields and targets obsolete. Either you pounce on enemy planes when they leave the ground, or pounce them at the target. You stand very little chance of getting them in between, even with tons of RADAR and 24 hour a day air missions in multiple provinces.

 

[Amoral]

What would be nice would be if you could set Fighters to defensive and Bombers to offensive.

You should be able to do that if you set up different chains of command for fighters and bombers.

 

[Amoral]

That's because of how the game handles the movement of aircraft. They "teleport" to the next province based on speed. Fast planes may teleport several provinces in an hour on their way to a target. This renders air superiority missions between enemy airfields and targets obsolete. Either you pounce on enemy planes when they leave the ground, or pounce them at the target. You stand very little chance of getting them in between, even with tons of RADAR and 24 hour a day air missions in multiple provinces.

In general that's right, but with one important exception. Bombers coming from England always appear over the channel. It is such a big province that the calculations mean they are there for over an hour. You can get in attack by using air superiority over the channel. You'll hurt the bombers on the way to the target, and on the way home.

 

[plasticpanzers]

night bombers and night fighters i had meant in my post would be a doctrine/tech that
would be efficent in a way they are not now.

 

[SirDraco]

14. Seperate chain-of-command for air (and naval) units (Corner79)
What I would love to see is that airfields and harbours act as HQ's. You assign a leader to it giving a bonus to all planes based there and assign the airfield to the theatre that controls the province the airfield is in. You should be able to give the ai control per airfield, just like you can do with HQ's. And just like with land HQ's it would be nice if it gave you an estimate of enemy airpower and the possibilty for different stances

I would ideally like to see more structure to it. I think that the basic Air unit should be changed from RAF Groups/USAAF Wings (Roughly 100 fighters) to RAF Wings/USAAF Groups (2-4 Squadrons). Using RAF terms, you would then have each Wing linked to a airfield within the command area of the Group. The Group is then linked to a Command (e.g. Fighter Command) which is then linked to the Theater.

So for example in the picture below we have a map showing the Group areas for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. Within each Group area was a number of sectors (equivalent of a Wing), which each had a airfield assigned for them.

 

[kaspar42]

I agree with the OP.

 

[ATLeow]

Excellent thread and great ideas, all well thought-out. Let's all hope Paradox actually implements this. Air combat is the one part of the game I just can't devote the time to actually do - air units cancel their missions after a while and I cannot for the life of me organise a bombing campaign at the same time as co-ordinating ground troops. If things like these ideas were implemented I'd have a lot more fun blowing planes out of the sky. Or letting a capable air-only AI command structure do it.

 

[Hakello]

So for example in the picture below we have a map showing the Group areas for Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. Within each Group area was a number of sectors (equivalent of a Wing), which each had a airfield assigned for them.

So basicly you are suggesting that the airfield should be able to be assigned to other HQ's as well?

I don't see how beeing able to assign it to other HQ's has any gameplay impact, if it auto assigns to the theathre the airfield is in its easier for the interface (less visuals required), less complicated. and the end result will be the same. The only difference I see is some RP value for having subgroups, or did I miss something?

 

[SirDraco]

So basicly you are suggesting that the airfield should be able to be assigned to other HQ's as well?

I'm suggesting the aircraft at the airfields be attached to new air HQs.

I don't see how beeing able to assign it to other HQ's has any gameplay impact, if it auto assigns to the theathre the airfield is in its easier for the interface (less visuals required), less complicated. and the end result will be the same. The only difference I see is some RP value for having subgroups, or did I miss something?

It have the same benefits as land units that are attached to a command hierarchy. More Leader traits benefiting the units and also it would also have more flexibility when assign tasks. Say you wanted all your fighters to defend while your bombers attack, with your idea you would have to set each airfield individually and if you have bombers and fighters assigned to the same airfield it could cause problems. With my idea, you could stick all the Fighters into one HQ (Fighter Command) and all the bombers into another (Bomber Command), then by simply setting Fighter Command to Air defence and Bomber Command to Air Offensive, you have done the same thing but with less clicks. Likewise if you had each Command sub divided into Groups, you would get more control how you do the same thing. So you can set out fighter group to defend the south-east, another to defend the south-west etc, likewise you can have one bomber group set to attack one area while another bombs a different area.

Maybe its a bit more complicated to set up, but once you get it up and running, you would have more control over what the AI does. Obviously if you don't want to have the AI in control of your air units then it doesn't matter how you do it.

 

[Hakello]

Ahh I see what you were getting at ^^ And yeah I agree completly that you should be able to tell your bombers and fighters what stance to take seperatly! However the way I had it in mind was that the airfield had 2 or 3 stances like HQ's have right now (land, air, naval) but then sorted by fighters, bombers and maybe naval bombers as a separate branch.

I'll make suggestion 14 more clear in this regard

 

[SirDraco]

I still think it would be a bit better to have more of a chain of command. Lets say you are the UK and you want to set up the RAF so that the fighters defend, the bombers attack and the NAVs also attack. With your idea you would have to set each airfield individually, whereas with my idea you can set it at different levels depending on the amount of control you want over it. Say we take the historical approach, so we set up Fighter Command, Bomber Command and Coastal Command, each one split into several groups. You could then tell Fighter Command to defend, say you give Fighter Command 5 groups, it would split the UK into 5 and assign a group to each area, the Group would then spread its wings around each airfield within its area, each wing would then take it in turns to intercept the enemy adding more wings depending on enemy strength, this should hopefully lead to having at least one fully organised wing at all times. If you want more control you can set the AI at group level and choose the area to give each group yourself. With the other commands it would be the same, but you can select a different target area for each group within Bomber Command, for instance or just leave it to the AI to decide.

 

[ilikemilkshake]

These are all really great ideas, most of which i've wondered why they aren't already part of the game. If i had to guess it would be budget or balance issues.
Anyway another idea would be, when you add an air fleet to an army group or whatever, you can automatically set it to conduct missions helping any units conducting missions. So if you assign a CAS unit to an army, when that army attacks the CAS attacks with it.