Possibly useful information for modders

[Mjarr]

Hello there.

I have recently been experimenting ways to improve air combat of the game to more realistic, slower pace. Many mods that have attempted to improve it still have not ultimately managed to fix the 'zergrushing' that plagues the system.

However, recent experiments done personally have made interesting note: reducing and adjusting air attack value can have dramatic effects to combat pace and attrition rate itself.

In unmodded HoI2, Improved Fighter air attack is 12 and Advanced Fighter is 15. Everybody knows also how the combat works ingame, and E.G. putting your forces airbourne in Operation Overlord when playing as germany means ultimate destruction in three hours. After adjusting it down to 9 and 10 respectively, let's see some results. For interceptors, the modified values were 8 and 9 correspondingly. Mind you, I only used self-made modifications with SKIF and GIP installed.

I used Operation Overlord scenario as testbed, since Allied air force outnumbers you quite well. I only changed two german fighter units to Advanced fighter type for another test reason. After I started the scenario I rebased every fighter unit in Paris and gave Galland command and waiting for organisation to build abit more.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3869/kuva1ven.jpg

Now on June 6th, 0100 hours I gave air superiority day patrols for the unit around Paris. Around 0800 hours the engaged with sole Interceptor unit

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8747/kuva2b.jpg

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6177/kuva3b.jpg

Ultimately losses mounted up to 30% of paper strenght for the interceptor squadron (unfortunately I forgot to take screenshot as the combat ended at that point) and noticable organisation loss.

For the rest of day it was quiet around Paris, until June 7th 1944 1000 hours:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3038/kuva4b.jpg

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6126/kuva5b.jpg

Luftwaffe losses were 2-3% per each squadron roughly, while allies lost between 4-12% (roughly), thanks to base proximity and superior Bf 109 pilots

No other real engagements were seen around Paris that day, and June 8th 1944, 1300 hours:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5141/kuva6b.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6189/kuva7b.jpg

Three times greater opposition merely caused 30-50% losses while infilicting minimal in return, roughly 2-3% to several allied squadrons and had to be grounded due attrition and lack of organisation.

The units went airbourne with 104 organisation and had strenght of 83% per squadron and ended up in this:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2261/kuva8.jpg

Conclusion:
By modifying air attack value down and tweaking accordingly to other planes (air defence and attack for bombers, escorts etc), it is possible to modify air combat to far more realistic pace and setting in terms of casualties and potentially reduce the zergrushing mega-stack-of-death nature of air combat in game itself and in several mods, making it possible to actually have also air force spread around diffrent regions accordingly. Considering that they were to patrol the skies for three days before facing numerical superiority that forced squadrons to be grounded, it is quite major improvement from unmodded ultimate destruction that would have occured the first hour it encountered noticable numerical superiority.

I have replicated this test ten times, even though only took any pictures or documents about it from the 3rd test, as results were fairly identical (including test where all advanced fighters were improved fighters instead) and several times on Göttedämnerung scenario while playing as Germany. Rarely over 30% casualties were caused in a single battle unless there was 3-5x greater air opposition against you, close to equal or only minor diffrence (3vs5 for instance) causes average 3-12% casualties per engagement.

Intersetingly, similiar effects also works with naval units that modifying down naval attack values will somewhat prolong battles and spread damage far more gradually among fleets (unless it is 2-4 ships vs 14+ ships) rather than instantaneous effect of sleeping with the fishes.

I hope that someone would find this experiment useful.

 

[Skarion]

Youve tried an handsoff game and see how it affect how the games goes for Germany or the allies?

 

[Mjarr]

I did that just recently, played Ardennes offensive as germany for some challenge.

Even though it was obvious that I could not do anything too major regading air force-wise, I was capable of gaining air superiority in local areas and managed to do several day bombardments and night bombardments without bombers getting intercepted.

However, this often meant fighter squadrons were suffering noticable attrition rates and eventually both had to be grounded to save oil for land units. Given the fact longer ground combat was also involved (similiar in TRP and WiF), it was pretty major to allow units to capture Eindhoven after several weeks thanks to air support.

Simply put, it allows even weaker side to put some effective air resistance and perform minor operations without the danger of getting instantly bumraped, as complete air supremacy is far more difficult to achieve with air unit modifications while stronger side (regarding air forces) still retains advatange in numbers and such.

 

[FulmenTheFinn]

Excellent findings you did there. Indeed air combat is extremely poorly simulated in HoI2. IRL there were at least two airforces - of which the other was one of the largest and best equipped airforces in the world - that excelled against the enemy even when heavily outnumbered and with sometimes inferior equipment; the Finnish Air Force and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force). However if you in-game engage 4 fighter units of I-16s with a single fighter unit of a B-239s, the B-239s will get raped. Very ahistorical.

 

[Mjarr]

Another test, this time Winter War scenario as finns.

See and be impressed.

Early december, 0900 hours.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6570/ww1m.jpg

Same date, 1400 hours and before the engagement practically ended.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1253/ww2v.jpg

Two days later, 1000 hours.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8054/ww3.jpg

Same day later after checking squadrons after defeat.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6008/ww4.jpg

Even though you could say it partly to be modding 'lack of knowledge' how to adjust everything properly with new concept, despite the fact being EXTREMELY outnumbered in terms of strenght, none of the squadrons were destroyed. Nothing was really gained in return, but they were still able to keep VVS busy around there

Honestly, some realism based mods (TRP, WiF etc) should take some lessons here. It could make things far more intresting than still relying on decisive air battles in which the winner is granted total air supremacy for certain period of time.

 

[Skarion]

Play as Haiti or something and let the game continue from 1936. Then use nofog and check amount of airplanes and if this has affected the game in any kind of way.

 

[Mjarr]

Play as Haiti or something and let the game continue from 1936. Then use nofog and check amount of airplanes and if this has affected the game in any kind of way.

I decided to give a go as USA in 1936 scenario and allied with UK ASAP to have some fun in the world.

In 'battle of britain' it was noted that air activity was far more common in general, there were rarely less than one week of period with no real activity involved.

Another thing I also noted is that the concept is far more functional when air unit organisations are on higher levels (later doctrines etc), one possible solution would be to slightly up\boost early air doctrines. Nevertheless, I was having oddly high amount of fun as when I invaded Italy in mid '42 and germans were having air superiority around the area. I had to use runway cratering for the first time in ages to ease the situation in the first place and eventually the balance shifted. It still took two and a half months to reach fro Reggio di Calabria -> Florence.

And if someone remembers the possibility it might work on naval combat aswell, well it does. I had naval engagement in pacific: My 3xSHBB and 7xDDs engaged japanese fleet with single carrier at night. After a day the carrier was demoralized and it turned out as more of a traditional battleship battle. After four days I lost one destroyer squadron two SHBBs got major damage, japanese lost two battleships, and one cruiser while the carrier and several other ships were heavily damaged.

 

[Mjarr]

Now after playing the USA game up to 1947, I have come up to several conclusions with the concept:

1. Leadership, base proximity and other modifiers were far more important than 'usually'.
2. The concept works best if amount of squadrons are relatively low; in other words having 12 squadrons in area X and keep them patrolling diffrent places 24h\7 and encountering sole squadron gave somewhat similiar results as it is in unmodded game, even though unit ratios (x vs y) required to cause massive bumrape (in terms of casualties) were higher.
3. Somewhat related to point #2, it is far most functional when air organisations gets higher and morale also gets higher.
4. Destruction of entire squadron in an engagement was extremely rare event, only time I managed to see this was sole CAS evacuating and getting pummeled first by RAF, then USAAC and then by RCAF.
5. Escort fighters were initially overpowered, later on somewhat fine. Matter of tweaking.
6. Increasing surface defence for CAS, tact and other units reduced the risk of suddenly losing 20%+ by going against massive troop stack.

For naval combat:

1. Tweaking naval attack values down made the combat realistic, even up to the point it can be extremely slow in terms of 'traditional' engagements and proper sinkings rarely occur.
2. Carriers became far more important as battleships or cruisers couldn't simply ninja-attack during night and sink everything (even though they are still noticable threat if they get up close) in an instant, and were only naval vessels capable of actually sinking effectively in major engagements.
3. It made smaller fleets somewhat viable option in terms of patrolling or so, as it took 4x destroyers vs fleet sizing 16+ ships (mainly battleships etc) to be sunk in few hours. I was capable of keep several small battleship fleets (3-4x CL or DD and 1-3 battleships) in the pacific in patrol duties around ports without any dangers.

As for possible solutions or comments regarding each noted thing:

#1 Air combat leadership and base proximity + experience effect etc on combat is quite realistic, so nothing too major here.
#2 Air unit supply consumptions could be increased to rather high levels to somewhat discourage massive buildup of air forces, while in case of AI it could need some modifications about how much it builds units...? Granted, this still would make AI vulnerable to player zergrush, but if over 75% of army supplies goes to RAF\Luftwaffe\VVS\whatever it is per nation, I might want to reconsider my air power usage
#3 Simply buffing up early doctrines in terms of organisation and morale or default organisation levels of air units and so on could fix the issue. Would require some tests and tweaks.
#4 Nothing to really say, besides it was amusing to see how long it took.
#5 Matter of tweaking.
#6 Slightly more realistic in general, could make smaller air support stacks viable somewhat.

Naval #1 even though it could be 'too' slow to consider, it is far more realistic and immersive in terms of battleship engagements, carriers were somewhat less affected.
Naval #2 again, one could say this is realistic while it still keeps the usage of battleships as viable option, even though not the wisest one.
Naval #3 this is also more realistic in general + less stacking penalty.