Any success stories in MP for TACS and CAS? Are they worth their IC? Personally I think they aren't worth much, and do very poorly against larger stacks. Has anyone had a different experience against human opposition - GER vs USSR or the UK?
-
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.
boromir said:
I see no evidence that they are. See my reply this morning on Colonel Warden's VNet 36 game thread for the test I ran that really seemed to confirm my unsystematic observation of airpower in my games. I set up what should be ideal conditions for bombing, and the planes might as well have been dropping water balloons.
So I guess the conclusion is that air power as it stands in 1.1 (TACS/CAS) is ineffective.
boromir said:
I have found that airpower used piecemeal has little effect.
However, if a substantial amount of bombers (read: group of 4) is applied to an area where you have achieved air superioty then they are effective.
The caveat here is you also need the bombing doctrines researched and tech-equivelent/superior to the land forces you're attacking. They also seem to slow advances/retreats of land forces which can be very useful tactically
Out-dated small wing attacks seem to be ineffective.
Strategic bombing seems to be pretty ineffective however.
Just my humble opinion.
I've found them to be completely useless in MP. Usually in MP you play a major nation and tend to group your infantry into huge stacks. This is especially true in the Eastern front where seeing 24 Soviet divisions in each border province is the norm. A group of 4 TACwill do almost no damage to a stack that big and will end up getting shot down to 50% strength in a few days while a group of 4 CAS would probably just die completely.
Ran some more tests, using German 41 inf and Pz IV land units, German imp tac and imp cas air units, and Polish 39 inf as the victims.
First tests were to see if using tac/cas in combination with land attacks would make the tac/cas more effective. Results? For CAS a resounding no. For tac, potential yes, but not by much. With CAS bombing, the land only battle was one hour longer and the ending values of all forces were virtually identical. The CAS-only Polish stack had suffered 5 strength loss during the time period of the land battles.
CAS has virtually NO effect on ground troops defending land where they are dug in. Given that this test was improved CAS against basic infantry, that result is very bad for CAS.
I then had 8 CAS bomb a 6-stack for 10 days. At the end of 10 days, with IC devoted for 50% of reinforcement needs, the infantry had 588 strength.
I then put the defenders in motion. After 10 days of bombing, the defenders who started at 588 strength ended with 501 strength.
Conclusion? Only use your CAS to bomb troops in motion. This makes CAS far more useful for a side that will be defending than one that will be attacking. For an attacker, CAS can help degrade reinforcements or pound retreaters, but it will not help you win important battles. For a defender, since the attacker is not dug in, CAS can have a real impact.
Historically, of course, CAS were crucial to the success of the Germans in their early campaigns. I submit that the dug-in bonus for land units against Air attack needs to be drastically reduced. This is because the dug-in bonus is so large that it makes troops that have been stationary for a few days as if they were sitting in level 5 or 6 forts for purposes of bombing.
One possibility is for the dug-in bonus to decrease as the battle goes on, and fairly rapidly. Maybe have the defender's dug-in bonus decrease in a straight line with his org decrease. This simulates the attackers forcing the defenders out of their prepared positions.
Now, the Tac bombing did have an effect on the land battle. The land-only battle took 16 hours. The tac/land battle took 7 hours. The attacking land units in the tac/land battle sustained about 20 fewer strength losses. I believe all other factors were equal, so this does indicate that tac of superior tech levels can help land units of superior tech levels defeat an inferior opponent with fewer losses to itself. My earlier tests show that tech equivalence removes most if not all of this impact.
If I'm playing UK or USSR, I might build CAS and Tac. Of course, if I'm USSR I don't need to because I can simply overwhelm Germany with massive numbers of ground units. As Germany, Tac might be worthwhile, but CAS clearly are not. Even tac, because of their cost, are of questionable worth. However, Germany might still want to build fighters and int, because it appears the allies can hurt him with bombing.
First tests were to see if using tac/cas in combination with land attacks would make the tac/cas more effective. Results? For CAS a resounding no. For tac, potential yes, but not by much. With CAS bombing, the land only battle was one hour longer and the ending values of all forces were virtually identical. The CAS-only Polish stack had suffered 5 strength loss during the time period of the land battles.
CAS has virtually NO effect on ground troops defending land where they are dug in. Given that this test was improved CAS against basic infantry, that result is very bad for CAS.
I then had 8 CAS bomb a 6-stack for 10 days. At the end of 10 days, with IC devoted for 50% of reinforcement needs, the infantry had 588 strength.
I then put the defenders in motion. After 10 days of bombing, the defenders who started at 588 strength ended with 501 strength.
Conclusion? Only use your CAS to bomb troops in motion. This makes CAS far more useful for a side that will be defending than one that will be attacking. For an attacker, CAS can help degrade reinforcements or pound retreaters, but it will not help you win important battles. For a defender, since the attacker is not dug in, CAS can have a real impact.
Historically, of course, CAS were crucial to the success of the Germans in their early campaigns. I submit that the dug-in bonus for land units against Air attack needs to be drastically reduced. This is because the dug-in bonus is so large that it makes troops that have been stationary for a few days as if they were sitting in level 5 or 6 forts for purposes of bombing.
One possibility is for the dug-in bonus to decrease as the battle goes on, and fairly rapidly. Maybe have the defender's dug-in bonus decrease in a straight line with his org decrease. This simulates the attackers forcing the defenders out of their prepared positions.
Now, the Tac bombing did have an effect on the land battle. The land-only battle took 16 hours. The tac/land battle took 7 hours. The attacking land units in the tac/land battle sustained about 20 fewer strength losses. I believe all other factors were equal, so this does indicate that tac of superior tech levels can help land units of superior tech levels defeat an inferior opponent with fewer losses to itself. My earlier tests show that tech equivalence removes most if not all of this impact.
If I'm playing UK or USSR, I might build CAS and Tac. Of course, if I'm USSR I don't need to because I can simply overwhelm Germany with massive numbers of ground units. As Germany, Tac might be worthwhile, but CAS clearly are not. Even tac, because of their cost, are of questionable worth. However, Germany might still want to build fighters and int, because it appears the allies can hurt him with bombing.
HerrG: what missions were you using? My experience is that ground attack inflicts close to no strenght damage at all, while several groups of 3/4 tacs on interdiction can bring the org of the enemy down pretty quick. I have made use of this in favourable conditions (as UK vs Italy), but observed that even battles will quickly turn in your favour when the bombers arrive.
I haven't analyzed how much numbers matter when bombing a battle, but interdicting a stack of 10 divisions with 4 tacs helps nothing, while 4 tacs against 2 divisions often completely disorganized the troops.
I haven't analyzed how much numbers matter when bombing a battle, but interdicting a stack of 10 divisions with 4 tacs helps nothing, while 4 tacs against 2 divisions often completely disorganized the troops.
Vissarion said:
Ground attack from the CAS and interdiction from the Tacs.
I really don't consider it worthwhile to build air if it will only be effective against 2 unit stacks. If you saw my earlier tests, tac are only effective when used with clear technological and/or numerical advantage.
HerrGeneral said:
So you cannot compare the results of the 2 tests, when the planes are flying different missions...On Ground attack the enemy will send reinforcements..it is costing him production..And on interdiction you are winning the land battle quicker...Hmmm i think that was what the manual said about the subject....
The biggest problem is that Paradox limited air power by limiting interface (max. 4 units stack completely usless in MP games), i think it is the first such situation in all computer games history. Should be written in history books.
It would be better to limit one air division vs one land division exclusively, so even if there would be 3 air divisions vs. 1 land, only one would fight.
Also i never understood what is the difference between interdiction and ground attack mission, cause both are ground attack kind and both cause casaulties and of course are reducing organisation. But if it is as it is then at least CAS should be more effective on ground attack and tacticals on interdinction.
It would be better to limit one air division vs one land division exclusively, so even if there would be 3 air divisions vs. 1 land, only one would fight.
Also i never understood what is the difference between interdiction and ground attack mission, cause both are ground attack kind and both cause casaulties and of course are reducing organisation. But if it is as it is then at least CAS should be more effective on ground attack and tacticals on interdinction.
For starts, there is a big difference between interdiction and ground attack: one reduces enemy organization and the other reduces enemy strength. CAS is by far superior to TAC, at least in ground attack, but the trade off is its limited range.
In terms of an imbalance in air vs. ground combat, both sides have air stacking rules enforced. There may be several "air groups" of four operating in an area. There should be no more than 4 such groups of similar missions (interdiction and runway cratering, for example, may be considered dissimilar). This keeps the total number of units down to the command capacity of an air marshall. If you send off 4 groups at the same time on the same mission in the same area, they will tend to hit the same target. This means that a single airbase can effectively hold a stack of ten air units acting in concert.
So, the four unit cap is essentially meaningless. I remain uncertain as to the intent of it, but it may be an attempt at a hierarchical structure and to force further micromanagement for the human while keeping things simple for the AI.
In terms of facing off with land units, there are penalties in air combat for large numbers of units for both land and air. While you will not run into an "over-command limit" when you run into more than 16 defending land units, the "-2% per unit over 2" limit does apply (as in air units). Thus, 16 CAS, if unescorted, would operate at a -28% penalty when facing 32 land divisions. The land divisions would operate at a -60% penalty. Without terrain, weather, or leadership effects, the land divisions could only apply 40% of their air attacks and defenses against the aircraft. Thus large stacks remain legitimate targets for air groups.
In terms of an imbalance in air vs. ground combat, both sides have air stacking rules enforced. There may be several "air groups" of four operating in an area. There should be no more than 4 such groups of similar missions (interdiction and runway cratering, for example, may be considered dissimilar). This keeps the total number of units down to the command capacity of an air marshall. If you send off 4 groups at the same time on the same mission in the same area, they will tend to hit the same target. This means that a single airbase can effectively hold a stack of ten air units acting in concert.
So, the four unit cap is essentially meaningless. I remain uncertain as to the intent of it, but it may be an attempt at a hierarchical structure and to force further micromanagement for the human while keeping things simple for the AI.
In terms of facing off with land units, there are penalties in air combat for large numbers of units for both land and air. While you will not run into an "over-command limit" when you run into more than 16 defending land units, the "-2% per unit over 2" limit does apply (as in air units). Thus, 16 CAS, if unescorted, would operate at a -28% penalty when facing 32 land divisions. The land divisions would operate at a -60% penalty. Without terrain, weather, or leadership effects, the land divisions could only apply 40% of their air attacks and defenses against the aircraft. Thus large stacks remain legitimate targets for air groups.
BlitzMartinDK said:So you cannot compare the results of the 2 tests, when the planes are flying different missions...On Ground attack the enemy will send reinforcements..it is costing him production..And on interdiction you are winning the land battle quicker...Hmmm i think that was what the manual said about the subject....
Yep, and you shouldn't compare them as air in HOI2 needs lots of work. Even at the most basic level there seems to have been confusion about what an air unit is. The manual (and I guess the developers) confuses relative roles and sizes of squadrons, wings, groups etc. How many aircraft are supposed to be in each of these individual units (counters)? 12, 36 108? Does that vary from country to country? In 1940 the RAF had approximately 600 fighters. This is represented in HOI2 by 13 groups each of appx 50 aircraft. What damage should we expect a stack of four of these groups (200 aircraft) to inflict on a stack of 12 inf divs (140,000 men)?
Last edited:
Oleg Gordievsky said:
Organisation problems, slower move, vehicle damages, limited supplying.
I believe that a full strength unit is supposed to be about 100 aircraft which would be a Wing/Geschwader.Oleg Gordievsky said:
Andrew
Answering original question: not it is not worth.
1. managing that consumes lots of time;
2. low control of what is bombed and where;
3. almost no effect on land units;
4. cost of production and researching techs, that is extremaly high in compare to the above problems,
Question is if there will be ever any improvement to this sick system?
1. managing that consumes lots of time;
2. low control of what is bombed and where;
3. almost no effect on land units;
4. cost of production and researching techs, that is extremaly high in compare to the above problems,
Question is if there will be ever any improvement to this sick system?
Orthank said:
Agreed, but some specifics / values would be nice.
They should probably do more but god forbid we return to HOI1 when a group (four stack) of aircraft could decimate a Army Group (12 stack). Surely nobody wants a return to HOI1 type air attack values?
I don't like the current system - makes air worthless - but some kind of compromise would be nice. Only reason I mention this is because many people seem to suggesting a return to the ways of HOI1. Imho that would be a disaster.
Colonel Warden said:
Interesting. My limited understanding of RAF organizational structure is that the smallest unit, a squadron, was appx. 12 aircraft. A wing was usually comprised of three squadrons (36 aircraft) and a Group of three wings (108 aircraft).
The 39 scenario has 13 RAF Groups at 85% stength and 39 German equivalents. The RAF in 39 had appx 600 aircraft. The Luftwaffe nearly 3000.
Otherwise, there were only four Groups in the RAF at this time, not 13, so I think the names of the 13 units need to be changed to wings. Secondly, if we're agreed that there were only appx. 600 aircraft in the RAF at this time then the average size of a wing (unit/counter) must be appx. 50 (50 x 13 = 650). The Luftwaffe is more accurately depicted, although overpowered by 25%.
So we get back to the original issue of how much damage a four stack (200 aircraft) does to an Army Group (12 stack = 100-150,000 troops). The answer is probably very little. I can't think of a single battle in WWII where Air power alone, least of all only 200 aircraft, significantly dented an Army Group. Against static targets, like factories/cities, the damage would be huge, otherwise, much less.
I think the allies had 11,000 aircraft available to them for use on D-Day, including 1200 heavy bombers. This number of bombers would be represented by 25 or so units/counters in HOI2. A similar number of CAS, TACs, fighters and Interceptors were thrown at the Germans on D-Day, so in excess of 100 counters/units in total. It would be intresting to see what effect 100 units would have on a 12 stack.
HerrGeneral said:
Sounds about right? ... 400 CAS attacking an entrenched unit of appx 60,000 men over 10 days and inflicts 1,200 deaths.
HerrGeneral said:
Again, seems to be a realtively accurate historical figure. That's 10,000 men!!
HerrGeneral said:
Perhaps air could be made a little cheaper.
Last edited: