Developer Diary | Summer Open Beta

[hannibal_pjv]

Out of curiosity, why does vanilla naval gameplay no longer work for competitive multiplayer?

Yeah. It seems working just fine and most likely just get better, so I also would like to know, what is the problem.

 

[SEMPER FI]

A few more recommendations:

• Increase multi-engine aircraft reliability due to increased chances of getting home after losing an engine.
• Recommend, fuel and drop tanks both increase range by 50%, though at a cost of 50% more fuel. Additionally, allow small plane airframes 3 & 4 to carry two drop tanks. Case in point, the Me 109G’s carried 400 liters internally and up to two 300-liter drop tanks (the earlier Me 109E could carry one drop tank to extend its range). The P-51D carried ~ 696 liters (184 gallons) internally and up to two ~321 liters (85 gallons) drop tanks. In the cases of the Me 109 G and P-51D, each drop tank equaled ~60-75% of internal fuel capacity.
• Besides logistics strikes, aircraft guns should also increase CAS attacks.
• Medium and heavy airframes are very expensive due to the cost of the engines. Recommend rebalancing to reduce cost.

 

[Alexander 'The Grape']

Out of curiosity, why does vanilla naval gameplay no longer work for competitive multiplayer?

It's not so bad outside of the med, the issue is that AA shoots down navs too much so there's no way to counter massive deathstacks surface raiding you if your fleet is smaller

 

[Colonel_Kraken]

Just a little history on air squadron accidents and operational ready rates . . .

I was an avionics tech in the U.S. Air Force (many moons ago). We had 24 F-15E's assigned to our squadron (391st Bold Tigers). This was on paper. In reality, we typically only had around half that number ready at any one time due to heavy maintenance rotation, major overhaul, hard down (engine or wiring issues), and . . . the big one: cannibalization (get to that in a moment). We had one huge deployment to Kuwait (1997) that we spent weeks getting ready for. The goal was to get 20 planes to deploy. We were able to get 18. This was with massive time and effort put into getting the planes ready and operational and with modern aircraft that literally have "plug and play" modules that we could just swap out with a new module.

I don't think people realize the absolute wear and tear that constant operational rates have on planes (we launched aircraft everyday). You are always doing maintenance . . . ALWAYS . . . CONSTANTLY. Because we were constantly doing maintenance on our aircraft, we had a huge demand for parts from depot (supply) that was never fulfilled 100%, so we would cannibalize parts from other planes in the squadron to keep the others operational. This was routine.

When I was in the Air Force, I studied this issue a bit. I ready several books on it. One that stuck out to me, was one on the Luftwaffe in WWII. As it turns out, they had the exact same issue as we had when I was in the Air Force. If I remember correctly, typical operational ready rates for Luftwaffe squadrons was something like 50% (or less). The main reason again was not enough spare parts to keep planes operational - which is a direct result of high tempo operations that cause huge wear and tear on planes which causes huge demand for replacement parts.

Furthermore, if anyone cares to look into it, accidents with aircraft in WWII (fighter planes in particular) was enormous, especially with little trained crew. That is why changes in technology was so huge in helping to decrease this for new pilots (like the much wider under carriage of the FW 190 vs. the 109). I guess what I am saying is, HoI4 does not even come close to reality when it comes to operational ready rates and equipment loss, replacements, etc. And don't get me started on tanks . . .

I know this is just a game, and it would not be fun (probably?) to deal with the actual reality of this, but just keep this in mind the next time you complain about accident rate.

 

[Gus_McCrae]

Adding on the feedback about air range being much too reduced:

1. Airzones are way too big for those extremely nerfed airframe ranges.
2. Airports in this game are limited to 2000 capacity per state, regardless of what state it is.

In practice this means enormous trouble fielding the ic as players would like to, or historical countries would do. Suppose one is to perform a cross-channel invasion with 20k fighters and CAS. The sensible thing to do would to have them all take off from the coast of southern England (where one can build plenty of airbases, certainly much more than 2000), and have them all perform missions over the beaches of western France. That would be fine and historical for aircraft with barely 1k range that you are introducing if airzones were not so massive and airports are not so constrained.

This, combined with the overall combat with reductions, will mean both sides will oversaturate the combat width on the ground and airport capacity in the air which leads to frustrating stalemates in game.

If you want to push towards those lower ranges at any point of time, the game has to adopt way larger airfield capacities in the long term. For example, you can set maximum airport size to scale with the type of state (2000 for rural, 6000 for urban, 8000 for dense urban, 10000 for metropolis and so on). Currently one can only have 2000 planes in say, london while one can have the same 2000 on say, malta is ridiculous.

The size of air ports should be increased If range is made smaller it would increase the value of airports but overall I feel air could use a bit more range to be more useable.

 

[HmJ_JP]

The size of air ports should be increased If range is made smaller it would increase the value of airports but overall I feel air could use a bit more range to be more useable.

More airports per area or bigger max size? I'm afraid with increased airport size we could see as a turnaround an absurd amount of planes, just to keep up with the lower efficiency. In the end, it would go against a simpler user experience and the intention to make each plane count. Of course, that's only my humble opinion.

 

[Harin]

Just a little history on air squadron accidents and operational ready rates . . .

I was an avionics tech in the U.S. Air Force (many moons ago). We had 24 F-15E's assigned to our squadron (391st Bold Tigers). This was on paper. In reality, we typically only had around half that number ready at any one time due to heavy maintenance rotation, major overhaul, hard down (engine or wiring issues), and . . . the big one: cannibalization (get to that in a moment). We had one huge deployment to Kuwait (1997) that we spent weeks getting ready for. The goal was to get 20 planes to deploy. We were able to get 18. This was with massive time and effort put into getting the planes ready and operational and with modern aircraft that literally have "plug and play" modules that we could just swap out with a new module.

I don't think people realize the absolute wear and tear that constant operational rates have on planes (we launched aircraft everyday). You are always doing maintenance . . . ALWAYS . . . CONSTANTLY. Because we were constantly doing maintenance on our aircraft, we had a huge demand for parts from depot (supply) that was never fulfilled 100%, so we would cannibalize parts from other planes in the squadron to keep the others operational. This was routine.

When I was in the Air Force, I studied this issue a bit. I ready several books on it. One that stuck out to me, was one on the Luftwaffe in WWII. As it turns out, they had the exact same issue as we had when I was in the Air Force. If I remember correctly, typical operational ready rates for Luftwaffe squadrons was something like 50% (or less). The main reason again was not enough spare parts to keep planes operational - which is a direct result of high tempo operations that cause huge wear and tear on planes which causes huge demand for replacement parts.

Furthermore, if anyone cares to look into it, accidents with aircraft in WWII (fighter planes in particular) was enormous, especially with little trained crew. That is why changes in technology was so huge in helping to decrease this for new pilots (like the much wider under carriage of the FW 190 vs. the 109). I guess what I am saying is, HoI4 does not even come close to reality when it comes to operational ready rates and equipment loss, replacements, etc. And don't get me started on tanks . . .

I know this is just a game, and it would not be fun (probably?) to deal with the actual reality of this, but just keep this in mind the next time you complain about accident rate.

Thanks for sharing your experience! It is always nice to get some real life mixed in with all the reading I like to do.

I have read that in WW2 the U.S. needed so many pilots so quickly that they ended up losing more aircraft to training and accidents than they lost in combat. IIRC they lost over 40,000 planes in training in the U.S. and lost many more in accidents around the world. I think the U.S. had some of the highest accident losses due to training, but they were trying to build the largest air fleet in history in a very short time. Even so, every country had a high accident rate.

Still, you make a good point. Just how much fun would it be to model such high losses to accidents?

If a high accident rate is going to be part of the game, maybe it could be put in the game in such a way that the player has some control and choices toward the accident rate. For example, maybe the air accident rate could be at its highest training new pilots. Once trained to level 3, the highest currently allowed, the accident rate drops considerably. To make this easier for players, it would be a nice addition to have air wings train a little like divisions with the added feature of consuming the oldest planes first. Having air wings train like this could be a useful tool to help the AI field better wings.

Once deployed maybe the accident rate could be modified by the experience of the air wing. It would never get close to zero, because like you said, in the real world, complicated machines break down constantly.

Another feature that I think would be useful and would not require much scope from the developers is to reduce the amount of experience that an airwing losses when losses occur, either in combat or by accidents. The rational reason for this is because in WW2, the rookie pilots died much faster than the experienced pilots. Losing the occasional rookie should not effect the overall experience at all. The missing pilot already effects the combat, due to one less plane flying. IMHO, taking a huge, unrealistic hit to air wing experience is not necessary, especially since the accident rate is higher now. Seeing the experience level climb could be good intuitive feedback to the player.

 

[punnykobold]

More airports per area or bigger max size? I'm afraid with increased airport size we could see as a turnaround an absurd amount of planes, just to keep up with the lower efficiency. In the end, it would go against a simpler user experience and the intention to make each plane count. Of course, that's only my humble opinion.

If you don't increase airport size, you exacerbate the problem that these range changes creates - there's a (functionally) hard-coded numerical limit to the number of fighters a side can put into an air region, and it's way too low. Late in a historical MP game, allies have one job which is to successfully land in France and kill Germany. If the game puts a functional limit to the amount of planes that can fly from England to France, and it's significantly lower than the amount the axis can fly within France itself, you've made investing into air as the allies meaningless which is stupid (as well as practically making the invasion impossible in the first place due to how land combat stats work - the attacker generally needs either extremely strong buffs like the Soviets get, or overwhelming aerial supremacy).

 

[Perikles]

While the airport capacities in industrialized areas like Britain is too low, it is far too big on small islands. In the game you can shuffle around thousands of fighters in short time between Britain, Malta, Singapore, remote Pacific islands. In reality the planes, the ground crews and the equipment had to be brought there by ships. As long as there is no strategic redeployment for air wings, at least the airport capacities on small islands should be limited to a small number, like a few hundred.

 

[FindFloppies]

at least the airport capacities on small islands should be limited to a small number, like a few hundred.

Really? There were about 3000 aircraft on Tinian alone...

 

[HmJ_JP]

I think it's impossible to replicate historical numbers, and few of us would like to micro manage this kind of war.
One reflection after reading PDX intention to make "each plane count", since BBA: to support Europe naval invasion from the UK, or also to strategically bomb Germany heartland, I guess that expectation is now to focus on developping bombers with enough self-protection (HMG turrets), and that's all. No fighters needed. At least, that's what my take from all those changes. Fighters are now only there for short range combats coverage.

 

[HmJ_JP]

Two questions about the Summer open beta:

• there have been only 2 patch, right? I was expecting maybe some fine tuning along the month of July, but only the CW has been updated along the way.
• can I ask some feedback from the community if you tried to play as a Europe democracy (UK/France...) on historical path? I found Germany to be much more aggressive. As noticed earlier, this delays my victory by about a year compared to normal branch. Is it only due to my play style?

 

[Znail]

Really? There were about 3000 aircraft on Tinian alone...

Tinian isn't a tiny island. Max sized airfields should be in place for islands so small that you couldn't physically fit that many airfields on them.

 

[Sucofo]

Summer update and By Blood Alone makes China plays more difficult .
If you enable By Blood Alone China will have not airplane technology and summer update adds more technology in air tech , China only have 2 Research slot and it need to research industry and army.
In past i can build air force in 1938 or 1939 but now i can build it in 1941 or later , and if i wanna build a more powerful air force i need more time.
It cause China player hardly to defense Japan player
and i think China area and Japan area need a little remake i think

 

[hannibal_pjv]

The china was quite depended on USA airroplanes. The flying Tigers if i don´t remember wrong…

Flying Tigers - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Sucofo]

The china was quite depended on USA airroplanes. The flying Tigers if i don´t remember wrong…

yep you re right. The china was depended but in game only the flying Tigers is not enough to use i think

 

[SvenDaViking]

Please reconsider some of the speed changes you´ve made to battleships and battlecruisers. Even before the beta they tended to be a bit slower than their historical counterparts. As it stands now, HMS Hood, arguably the first fast battleship that could top out at 32 kn sits on a laughable 24 kn. If you want to balance the early battleship hulls for the slow battle line doctrine, atleast make the battlecruiser scheme for them on par with the speed of the 1936 hull.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I've just finished a complete play through as China and the one thing that really comes through is the interaction of the new aircraft ranges with the restricted locations for airfields and the size of air zones. I suspect the range of aircraft is now correct for a realistic operational range, after all Me109s were under a severe disadvantage due to limited combat time during the battle of britain, but when you factor in the extra range you need because you can't build a closer airfield and the extra range you need because you need to be able to fly to "all parts" of an air zone this all becomes a bit restrictive. I'm really not sure what the correct approach should be to address this but it is definitely a major issue for air operations in any theatre with "enlarged" geography (ie large air zones / large state sizes).

 

[FLUX2226]

Could port strike missions be removed from medium bomb bays? They don't have any naval attack and are not allowed to do naval strikes, but they can do port strikes and apply their weight and agility penalties despite providing no stats for the mission. This means you can design a TAC with medium bomb bays and torpedos that would be valid for naval strikes, but is too heavy for port strikes despite identical attack stats for both missions, so you're not allowed to produce it.

This has been a "problem" before the beta already, but since medium bomb bays always applied their debuffs regardless of mission type it wasn't noticeable.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Could port strike missions be removed from medium bomb bays? They don't have any naval attack and are not allowed to do naval strikes, but they can do port strikes and apply their weight and agility penalties despite providing no stats for the mission. This means you can design a TAC with medium bomb bays and torpedos that would be valid for naval strikes, but is too heavy for port strikes despite identical attack stats for both missions, so you're not allowed to produce it.

This has been a "problem" before the beta already, but since medium bomb bays always applied their debuffs regardless of mission type it wasn't noticeable.

This is a very good point. It should be possible to design multi-role TACs without falling foul of issues like this.