Download the patch, here: EIR -- HAGS0608 Create a new copy of Aramgeddon 1.2, and the paste the patch into the "Doomsday Folder", then open the zip file by "extract here".
DO NOT EXTRACT IN YOUR ORIGINAL DOOMSDAY FOLDER.
Reworking the air combat system:
The two main changes are a reduction of the range of Naval Bomber to make their role more realistic, and to make the surface naval fleets more important, and the removal of the fighter unit altogether because in reality what are called "fighters" in the original game, are merely "Interceptors" on long range missions. This can be seen in the air-tech tree, where the difference between an ME-109 fighter wing, and an ME 109 Interceptor wing, is really the difference of a model, and the addition of a drop tank.
No longer will England be able to easily win air superiority over Germany in 1941/42.
Fighters: The fact is that one of the primary reasons that fighters are an absolute necessity in the game for both the Japanese and the US is because of the fact that they can be used to counter the long distance power of the overcharged Navs that exist in the game as it is now. Eliminating this distortion, eliminates much of the game play needs of having the unrealistic ranges of early single engine propeller aircraft. It is highly unrealistic that the air space over Germany is contested strongly by the Allies until at least 1943. So, we can have a steady increase in range for interceptor/fighters over the stretch of the war, if we do not have the long range Navs.
Doctrine: The basic approach I have taken with naval warfare, is one which shortens the range of the Navs (whatever they are equipped with) and to reduce Naval Attack statistics overal for Strats and Tacs, which are then enhanced by researching Naval Doctrines. These Doctrines would be of little interest to the Germans and the Russians for obvious reasons, so they can dispense with them, but for the naval powers, researching the basic plane types, and then the doctrines will slowly enhance their anti-naval hitting power over time.
Aircraft: Research the equpiment, and then the complimentary doctrine to apply the technology. A player can also build shorter range Navs if they like, which only get to their 1938 range of effective operations starting in 1943. I make apoint of saying "effective" operational range, because I think we have to recognize that patroling is a fundamental aspect of this kind of warfare, quite unlike attacking land targets, where you just fly to where you want to go, and then drop your load. So, its reasonable to shorten the "effective" range of Nav's because they have to do a fair amount of hunting, but close to shore they should pack a good punch.
These Doctrines will increase the power of long range Strats and Tacs, so that they can take over more of the burden of long distance deep water scouting, while the more limited Navs will have more punch, they will have less range.
Torpedo Bomber Concept for early short range land based air Naval war:
Perhaps the first example I showed was not the best, but it was intended to show that Japan can have effective control of the hornets nest of Islands defined by the Guam, Truk Kwalejin triangle, but not dominate the deep Pacific sea zones.
This example, at Kwalejin, actually shows that Navs operating out of the Japanese Marshall Islands, can not do effective operations all the way out to Midway and PH, even in 1943, where in vanilla they can stirke all the way to PH in 1941. Adjusted this way Japan must capture Wake, to make them effective on the approaches to PH. So Island hoping to increase ranges of air operations is a must, not merely optional.
Here, for example, the 1940 model Nav has effective range up to the Spratley Sea, but not to the coast of the Phillipines. That would not come for air operating from Saigon until the 1943 model is researched and in operation, with pre-teching that would mean late 1942 at the earliest.
Discussions going on here: EIR HAGS discussion at Lord Ederon's
DO NOT EXTRACT IN YOUR ORIGINAL DOOMSDAY FOLDER.
Reworking the air combat system:
The two main changes are a reduction of the range of Naval Bomber to make their role more realistic, and to make the surface naval fleets more important, and the removal of the fighter unit altogether because in reality what are called "fighters" in the original game, are merely "Interceptors" on long range missions. This can be seen in the air-tech tree, where the difference between an ME-109 fighter wing, and an ME 109 Interceptor wing, is really the difference of a model, and the addition of a drop tank.
No longer will England be able to easily win air superiority over Germany in 1941/42.
Fighters: The fact is that one of the primary reasons that fighters are an absolute necessity in the game for both the Japanese and the US is because of the fact that they can be used to counter the long distance power of the overcharged Navs that exist in the game as it is now. Eliminating this distortion, eliminates much of the game play needs of having the unrealistic ranges of early single engine propeller aircraft. It is highly unrealistic that the air space over Germany is contested strongly by the Allies until at least 1943. So, we can have a steady increase in range for interceptor/fighters over the stretch of the war, if we do not have the long range Navs.
Doctrine: The basic approach I have taken with naval warfare, is one which shortens the range of the Navs (whatever they are equipped with) and to reduce Naval Attack statistics overal for Strats and Tacs, which are then enhanced by researching Naval Doctrines. These Doctrines would be of little interest to the Germans and the Russians for obvious reasons, so they can dispense with them, but for the naval powers, researching the basic plane types, and then the doctrines will slowly enhance their anti-naval hitting power over time.
Aircraft: Research the equpiment, and then the complimentary doctrine to apply the technology. A player can also build shorter range Navs if they like, which only get to their 1938 range of effective operations starting in 1943. I make apoint of saying "effective" operational range, because I think we have to recognize that patroling is a fundamental aspect of this kind of warfare, quite unlike attacking land targets, where you just fly to where you want to go, and then drop your load. So, its reasonable to shorten the "effective" range of Nav's because they have to do a fair amount of hunting, but close to shore they should pack a good punch.
These Doctrines will increase the power of long range Strats and Tacs, so that they can take over more of the burden of long distance deep water scouting, while the more limited Navs will have more punch, they will have less range.
Torpedo Bomber Concept for early short range land based air Naval war:
Perhaps the first example I showed was not the best, but it was intended to show that Japan can have effective control of the hornets nest of Islands defined by the Guam, Truk Kwalejin triangle, but not dominate the deep Pacific sea zones.
This example, at Kwalejin, actually shows that Navs operating out of the Japanese Marshall Islands, can not do effective operations all the way out to Midway and PH, even in 1943, where in vanilla they can stirke all the way to PH in 1941. Adjusted this way Japan must capture Wake, to make them effective on the approaches to PH. So Island hoping to increase ranges of air operations is a must, not merely optional.
Here, for example, the 1940 model Nav has effective range up to the Spratley Sea, but not to the coast of the Phillipines. That would not come for air operating from Saigon until the 1943 model is researched and in operation, with pre-teching that would mean late 1942 at the earliest.
Discussions going on here: EIR HAGS discussion at Lord Ederon's
Last edited:
