yeah I hope you can make strategic bombing worth the 22 ic it costs to build the darn things. I keep spending way more manpower and ic repairing them than I cost the enemy on bombing missions. They are effectively useless as is.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It really should amount to a sort of rock scissors paper scenario when it comes to air force. Bombers need to be effective enough against troops and ground targets that your opponent has to build interceptors to stop them. Interceptors need to be effective enough at shooting down bombers that your opponent needs to build fighters to stop them.
As long as each type of aircraft trumps the next one as above, the main concern is making bombers effective enough to be worth building without being so overpowering that you can destroy whole armies with air power alone.
As long as each type of aircraft trumps the next one as above, the main concern is making bombers effective enough to be worth building without being so overpowering that you can destroy whole armies with air power alone.
Maybe the air tech tree, though its not much different from vanilla (except for layout, but that doesn't really count). I'll give that some thought and discuss it with the other CORE members.Sir Humphrey said:Any chance of a sneak peak at the tech tree?
The Air Doctrines I think I'll hold on to myself. Some surprises must be left for actual release.
Recovery time for IC after strategic bombing is way too fast. Needs to be tweaked in misc.txt - check Starfire's values for a value to work with...
That's not something that can be manipulated during the game through techs or events, is it?
baylox said:
No, it's a "universal value" that applies to everyone. It's in the misc.txt IIRC, like Phil pointed out. AFAIK, there are no commands that will change that value in game.
Turbojet Naval Bomber
Hi there,
I got the opportunity to develop and build the turbo naval bomber late one game. Imagine my surprise when it was named the Panther! Wasn't that was the designation of a Korean War short-ranged carrier-based attack plane? Seem to be streaching things a bit.
I agree with the posts to replace the naval bomber with a recon plane with limited attack ability. The really effective Allied ship killers were tactical bombers (B-25) using special tactics. Strategic bombers (B-24) were used for anti-submarine patrols. The Germans had their long-ranged four-engined naval bomber, the technology of which would have been the equivalent of a strategic bomber. Even the Japanese used Bettys for both land bombing and naval torpedoing. The tradeoff could be to increase the naval attack factors for those two categories and tie it to the development of an air doctrine.
Another strange naming sequence is putting the P-47s in the escort fighter line and the P-51s as fighters. I believe it should be the other way around. Otherwise the P-51s cannot escort the strategic bombers on their historic long ranged missions.
Interceptors should be cheap, short-ranged planes like the Me-109. They can project offensive power when coupled with Stukas. Otherwise they defend the homeland. Fighters should be longer-ranged planes like the FW-190 that can project the offensive power with tactical bombers. Escort fighters are the ones you need to fly along with the strategic bombers. I believe only the U.S. produced an effective escort fighter in WWII with the P-51.
My two cents.
Hi there,
I got the opportunity to develop and build the turbo naval bomber late one game. Imagine my surprise when it was named the Panther! Wasn't that was the designation of a Korean War short-ranged carrier-based attack plane? Seem to be streaching things a bit.
I agree with the posts to replace the naval bomber with a recon plane with limited attack ability. The really effective Allied ship killers were tactical bombers (B-25) using special tactics. Strategic bombers (B-24) were used for anti-submarine patrols. The Germans had their long-ranged four-engined naval bomber, the technology of which would have been the equivalent of a strategic bomber. Even the Japanese used Bettys for both land bombing and naval torpedoing. The tradeoff could be to increase the naval attack factors for those two categories and tie it to the development of an air doctrine.
Another strange naming sequence is putting the P-47s in the escort fighter line and the P-51s as fighters. I believe it should be the other way around. Otherwise the P-51s cannot escort the strategic bombers on their historic long ranged missions.
Interceptors should be cheap, short-ranged planes like the Me-109. They can project offensive power when coupled with Stukas. Otherwise they defend the homeland. Fighters should be longer-ranged planes like the FW-190 that can project the offensive power with tactical bombers. Escort fighters are the ones you need to fly along with the strategic bombers. I believe only the U.S. produced an effective escort fighter in WWII with the P-51.
My two cents.
Turbojet Naval Bombers will not remain in CORE, they've been removed since we've found them ahistorical.
The model assignment to interceptors, fighters and escort fighters is difficult since what you judge on? Actual role or actual capability? The P-51 was a great dogfighter with a superb range so should it be Escort or Fighter? I've put it down as fighter, with the P-47 (which is more escort than fighter, IMO) as the (mid-war) escort fighter, while it was one of the best ground-attack fighters as well. Could the P-47D (the most produced sub-model of all models during the war, all nations told) function as a Fighter (Air Superiority)? No, not as well as the P-51 would've. And that made the choice for me.
As for German fighters - all Interceptor models are Bf-109s and all Fighter models are Fw-190s (the Late-war variant being the Ta-152).
What I've looked at, then, is actual capability more than anything. But its hard to judge, especially with the US aircraft since they almost universally had very long ranges (P-38, P-51, P-47 and others).
The model assignment to interceptors, fighters and escort fighters is difficult since what you judge on? Actual role or actual capability? The P-51 was a great dogfighter with a superb range so should it be Escort or Fighter? I've put it down as fighter, with the P-47 (which is more escort than fighter, IMO) as the (mid-war) escort fighter, while it was one of the best ground-attack fighters as well. Could the P-47D (the most produced sub-model of all models during the war, all nations told) function as a Fighter (Air Superiority)? No, not as well as the P-51 would've. And that made the choice for me.
As for German fighters - all Interceptor models are Bf-109s and all Fighter models are Fw-190s (the Late-war variant being the Ta-152).
What I've looked at, then, is actual capability more than anything. But its hard to judge, especially with the US aircraft since they almost universally had very long ranges (P-38, P-51, P-47 and others).
The person that posted that the differences between the Bf.109 variants doesn't merit them being differienated between fighters and interceptors is quite incorrect.
It can be argued that the very concept of dividing fighters and interceptors is a Paradox quirk/mistake. Just about every main fighter(Luftwaffe), the Bf.109, Fw.190,Bf.110, was used as A.Day Air superiority B. Bomber Escort C. Ground Attack and D. The Bf.110 was used to great effect as a Night Fighter, the Bf.109 was tried but it proved difficult enough to handle in the day time .
However, there were specialized Bomber attack/Interceptor versions of the Bf.109 and Fw.190. Especially, the Bf.109g6-r6 which mounted Mg.151 20mm gondalas under each wing severely hampering its aerial combat manueverability. It was basically designed to go in fast straight lines with tons of firepower,,,precisely what you want against enemey bombers.
It can be argued that the very concept of dividing fighters and interceptors is a Paradox quirk/mistake. Just about every main fighter(Luftwaffe), the Bf.109, Fw.190,Bf.110, was used as A.Day Air superiority B. Bomber Escort C. Ground Attack and D. The Bf.110 was used to great effect as a Night Fighter, the Bf.109 was tried but it proved difficult enough to handle in the day time
.However, there were specialized Bomber attack/Interceptor versions of the Bf.109 and Fw.190. Especially, the Bf.109g6-r6 which mounted Mg.151 20mm gondalas under each wing severely hampering its aerial combat manueverability. It was basically designed to go in fast straight lines with tons of firepower,,,precisely what you want against enemey bombers.
re: P.51 and P.47
No need to split them into different categories in my opinion. the Tbolt was the primary bomber escort before the Stang, as at the period the Stang didn't have the capability.
Of course, it must be said.
In HOI we don't really go by the specific performances of equipment, we simply have general categories and try to find a plane or tank or ship etc. from that Nation that roughly fits into the picture.
i.e a German Lvl. 3 tank is no better than a British Lvl. 3 tank although historically there was quite the disaparity, in this game Italian and Japanese Lvl.3s are of equal capability (any differences in game have to do with leaders/doctrines/modifiers, etc.). Ergo, the planes don't have to fit precisely into a category that slavishly reflects their historical roles.
Therefore we can choose plane types only on a rough basis, and for the sake of simplicity and fluidness it would help to keep a plane type in a single category (though not necessarily making up the entire category).
When I get home I suppose I could compile my thoughts into a concrete list.
No need to split them into different categories in my opinion. the Tbolt was the primary bomber escort before the Stang, as at the period the Stang didn't have the capability.
Of course, it must be said.
In HOI we don't really go by the specific performances of equipment, we simply have general categories and try to find a plane or tank or ship etc. from that Nation that roughly fits into the picture.
i.e a German Lvl. 3 tank is no better than a British Lvl. 3 tank although historically there was quite the disaparity, in this game Italian and Japanese Lvl.3s are of equal capability (any differences in game have to do with leaders/doctrines/modifiers, etc.). Ergo, the planes don't have to fit precisely into a category that slavishly reflects their historical roles.
Therefore we can choose plane types only on a rough basis, and for the sake of simplicity and fluidness it would help to keep a plane type in a single category (though not necessarily making up the entire category).
When I get home I suppose I could compile my thoughts into a concrete list.
No, the assignment of models IS and will be based on quality and performance of aircraft (unlike vanilla). Therefor Germany won't have the Me-210 at all because compared to the 110 and 410 and to the UK and US equivalents (for Escort fighters, namely Mosquito and P-38/P-47) it was simply not up to par. Therefor the 410 takes the spot previously held by the 210 (in vanilla) and I think I've assigned a Do-335 model as the last Escort model (with nothing between the 410 and the Do335, since the number of models has been increased by one to reflect late-war aircraft, not just mid-war as it were in vanilla).
Some sacrifices has to be made, but I also wanted to fit prominent types into the game at historical positions, while judging their capabilities. You'll all see the full list when we release the first version and we can then discuss which model should go where.
To put it simply, I've assigned a 'baseline model' to each generation of aircraft (basic, improved and advanced as they were named in vanilla) and then compared the rest of the worlds' aircraft to that model. If they stood up well enough they could fill the respective spot for that nation, otherwise they would be assigned elsewhere (or not at all, if they were basically fringe aircraft). The Me-410 is then an improved escort fighter, rather than an advanced one.
Some sacrifices has to be made, but I also wanted to fit prominent types into the game at historical positions, while judging their capabilities. You'll all see the full list when we release the first version and we can then discuss which model should go where.
To put it simply, I've assigned a 'baseline model' to each generation of aircraft (basic, improved and advanced as they were named in vanilla) and then compared the rest of the worlds' aircraft to that model. If they stood up well enough they could fill the respective spot for that nation, otherwise they would be assigned elsewhere (or not at all, if they were basically fringe aircraft). The Me-410 is then an improved escort fighter, rather than an advanced one.
All you just did is expound upon what I had already just said. Basically, you have *slots* that are levels of performance, and you try to put in real aircraft that fit the category.
You aren't assigning the specific characteristics of the aircraft to them as they had in history. I.E Britians Lvl. V Jet Fighter (lets say the Meteor) and Germany's, the Me.262, will be on par in terms of performance, when they clearly weren't.
You will be placing the P.51 variants in the Fighter category, and they will have less range than the Escorts, despite the fact that the P.51s eclipsed in range any comparable single seat fighter in the ETO.
You aren't assigning the specific characteristics of the aircraft to them as they had in history. I.E Britians Lvl. V Jet Fighter (lets say the Meteor) and Germany's, the Me.262, will be on par in terms of performance, when they clearly weren't.
You will be placing the P.51 variants in the Fighter category, and they will have less range than the Escorts, despite the fact that the P.51s eclipsed in range any comparable single seat fighter in the ETO.
Or you just reiterated what I've already explained once or twice, here or on coremod.org. Depends on point of view.Gabriel Anthony said:
Fact remains that aircraft have been compared to each other, but not on a single performance issue (such as Range or Speed), but on all relevant characteristics. No two fighters had the exact same speed (take-off or cruise?) under the exact same conditions (how do we measure in altitude, weather and petrol quality effects on speed?), so it is the overall general capability that can be measured against.
If I could give certain nations bonuses to certain stats for aircraft then I certainly would to make sure US fighter had historically long ranges (this goes for Japan as well), and the opposite for German fighters. Now I can't, and in my mind the P-47 is more suited to the concept of "escort fighter" while the P-51 is better suited to the "air superiority fighter" concept (which the P-47 is not). The P-51 was a better dogfighter than the P-47 (which could take immense amount of damage instead), but Escort fighters have much lower Air Attack and much higher Air Defense than Fighters. This, to me, makes the P-47 more suitable as the Escort fighter (since its job is primarily to absorb damage, rather than dish it out)
Another aspect: The P-51 was the best all-round fighter of the war, easily. So how can anyone possibly make an accurate representation of it within the limits of the present game-engine?
We mean the same thing here, which is good, the only difference is our view on the actual model assignment. You are free to change this yourself in your own game and if I get good feedback (from you and anyone else) on why the P-51 should be the escort fighter (B, D or K version?) and where I should instead place the P-47 (C, D or N versions) then I'll certainly consider revising it. Its just that I cannot accept a single stat (like Range) to influence the overall perception.
baylox said:
Hi Babylox
I was wondering what you did with the Royal Airforce Fighters such as the Hurricane and Spitfrre and Typhoon which IIRC and agree was one of the best Close air surport fighters of WWII and for escort fighters I would use the Dehavilland Hornet as an Advanced version insted of the Welkin that Paradox used as that was desgin never flew and was desgined as an High Atltiude Fighter , if info need I have a few paper based referense from the period .
Regards Terry
P.S keep up the good work , eagerly ancitpating the release
Hey yourself!
Hurricanes are Interceptors, Spitfires are Fighters and Typhoon/Tempest are the two generations of ground attack fighters that I've added. I've added the De Havilland Hornet as the last English Escort fighter (which is one level more than what vanilla had). I'm still searching for a suitable intermediate model between the 'improved' Mosquito and the 'semi-modern' (if you wish, that's not what I'm calling them though) Hornet. If you have any ideas (it should be comparable to the P-47D), let me know!
The Welkin has been removed.
Hurricanes are Interceptors, Spitfires are Fighters and Typhoon/Tempest are the two generations of ground attack fighters that I've added. I've added the De Havilland Hornet as the last English Escort fighter (which is one level more than what vanilla had). I'm still searching for a suitable intermediate model between the 'improved' Mosquito and the 'semi-modern' (if you wish, that's not what I'm calling them though) Hornet. If you have any ideas (it should be comparable to the P-47D), let me know!
The Welkin has been removed.
baylox said:Hey yourself!
Hurricanes are Interceptors, Spitfires are Fighters and Typhoon/Tempest are the two generations of ground attack fighters that I've added. I've added the De Havilland Hornet as the last English Escort fighter (which is one level more than what vanilla had). I'm still searching for a suitable intermediate model between the 'improved' Mosquito and the 'semi-modern' (if you wish, that's not what I'm calling them though) Hornet. If you have any ideas (it should be comparable to the P-47D), let me know!
The Welkin has been removed.
Sounds great you could use the mustang ie: P-51 as the palne was orginall designed to satisfy RAF requirments and in the later models has a British desiged engine Mustang III is = P-51B or C and Mustang iV = P-51D or if you could use Thuderbolt II = P47D but they did not join RAF unitil 1945 and only used in Asia or Hawker Tempest F II desiged for Tiger Force for the Far East Max Speed of 440mph and 1640 Miles with Drop tanks
Terry
If you need any more just ask
The P-51B/C might not be a bad choice at all. After all, it didn't come into its own until after it was fitted with British Griffon (was it?) engine. I'll have to give that some more thought.
Any thoughts on a British Interceptor after the Hurricane Mk.IIC? I have the Spitfire Mk.19 there, but I'd rather not. The baseline model (to compare to) would be the Bf-109K-4 or (stretching things a bit) the P-40N.
Theater of war and service date doesn't matter (if it entered service at all), as long as it was a real project that would compared to the above mentioned aircraft.
Any thoughts on a British Interceptor after the Hurricane Mk.IIC? I have the Spitfire Mk.19 there, but I'd rather not. The baseline model (to compare to) would be the Bf-109K-4 or (stretching things a bit) the P-40N.
Theater of war and service date doesn't matter (if it entered service at all), as long as it was a real project that would compared to the above mentioned aircraft.
baylox said:
The Hawker Tempest II was a later plane than the Tempest V it was delayed because of it's Bristol Centuras V engines and was introducted in small numbers as and Intercetor- Escort wheres the FB version was Built inlarger numbers.
In the Mustangs the engine was an Americian built Packard (Rolls Royce) Merlin. (From Mk III) or P-51B
As the question I would put Spitfire XIV it has the about the same specs if you could let me know the models Lsit form US and German and Briitsh , I could have a quick look and see in context where you have aircraft , it must be arkward working with a limted amount of slots.
Terry