'39 map & Allied Air Superiority

[AlbertN]

Expressing a concern, but it seems to me the Allies have way too many fighters now in '39.

The problem is that these planes - each unit - has its own repair and recovery, whereas the Germans are 4, vs 6. (Ontop of strategic bombing since '39).

Suggesting for balance sake to remove 1 French Fighter, add 1 Italian (weak, like 5/20) fighter, and delay the UK strategic bomber til France falls or have it appear / arrive in July 40 like.

[AlvaroSousa]

Thanks for the input I will put it on my list.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

Expressing a concern, but it seems to me the Allies have way too many fighters now in '39.

The problem is that these planes - each unit - has its own repair and recovery, whereas the Germans are 4, vs 6. (Ontop of strategic bombing since '39).

Suggesting for balance sake to remove 1 French Fighter, add 1 Italian (weak, like 5/20) fighter, and delay the UK strategic bomber til France falls or have it appear / arrive in July 40 like.

+1

[TrogusP96]

I don't know if the relative force levels in September 1939 support this but it does show the flexibility of your system that the simple expedient of adjusting start values of units is available. Since the purchase of the whole unit is pretty high.

[AlvaroSousa]

The Allies in total had at least as many front line combat aircraft as the Germans

May 1940 combat aircraft
Germany ~2700
Allies ~2200
source: Brute Force - John Ellis

This is not counting the units in the UK I believe

The French had 500 modern aircraft. The Germans had a little extra experience from Spain and Poland.

The quality in an air force is the pilot not the plane. You would rather have a great pilot in a crappy plane than a novice pilot in a modern plane.

[AlvaroSousa]

All this is already reflected in the scenario as Germany starts off with more air force experience and 1940 planes for the most part.

[AlbertN]

I widely beg to differ on the pilot vs plane.

Italy did not had poor pilots (alas wrongly trained though, for the acrobatics with their biplanes...). But later on in the war Italian planes just could not compete with the Allies in general because they were worse. Nor France either. But both of them had poor planes. Italy was worse than France there.
But Techs do not give any real cutting edge when the difference is -1- point between '39 and '40 planes. To feel some difference one needs to have like, '39 to like '42 fighters or so. Or a massive gap in experience. (German vs Russia planes in '41 Barbarossa time)

German fighters / planes actually were doing way more sorties than Allied ones, they were kept upfront and had a shorter mileage to cover over France (and tables turned for Battle for Britain. UK did not had -more- planes than Germany in Battle for Britain. BUT British planes could pratically take off, fight, land for refuel and reload, and take off again to intercept a subsequent wave).

Obviously pilots matter - but at the start of the war Germany had the best pilots (in terms of hours of training) as well. Superior doctrine of employ in terms of ground support. The hours of training per pilot gradually decreased for Germany, and instead went up for the W.Allies over the course of the war. Til pratically in '44 German pilots (fresh ones) had barely any training, through fuel shortage, desperate need of pilots, etc. No matter how good their machines could have been (that besides the ratio of Allied planes vs German planes at that stage of the war).

But what it matters is the in-game effect. And that is that the Luftwaffe struggles an amount in '40. And the Luftwaffe is needed as Germans attack at poor odds against well dug in French until they start to 'move' the double line the French can field. Alas at the moment in two turns of actions the Luftwaffe is grounded and Germany struggles an amount to almost a WW1 state of taking France. Or at least that is my experience in the latest patch.

Play any strategy serious strategy game, and see who has air superiority if not supremacy in France '40. In most cases - unless the game has mucked up some - Germany has it.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

I widely beg to differ on the pilot vs plane.

Italy did not had poor pilots (alas wrongly trained though, for the acrobatics with their biplanes...). But later on in the war Italian planes just could not compete with the Allies in general because they were worse. Nor France either. But both of them had poor planes. Italy was worse than France there.
But Techs do not give any real cutting edge when the difference is -1- point between '39 and '40 planes. To feel some difference one needs to have like, '39 to like '42 fighters or so. Or a massive gap in experience. (German vs Russia planes in '41 Barbarossa time)

German fighters / planes actually were doing way more sorties than Allied ones, they were kept upfront and had a shorter mileage to cover over France (and tables turned for Battle for Britain. UK did not had -more- planes than Germany in Battle for Britain. BUT British planes could pratically take off, fight, land for refuel and reload, and take off again to intercept a subsequent wave).

Obviously pilots matter - but at the start of the war Germany had the best pilots (in terms of hours of training) as well. Superior doctrine of employ in terms of ground support. The hours of training per pilot gradually decreased for Germany, and instead went up for the W.Allies over the course of the war. Til pratically in '44 German pilots (fresh ones) had barely any training, through fuel shortage, desperate need of pilots, etc. No matter how good their machines could have been (that besides the ratio of Allied planes vs German planes at that stage of the war).

But what it matters is the in-game effect. And that is that the Luftwaffe struggles an amount in '40. And the Luftwaffe is needed as Germans attack at poor odds against well dug in French until they start to 'move' the double line the French can field. Alas at the moment in two turns of actions the Luftwaffe is grounded and Germany struggles an amount to almost a WW1 state of taking France. Or at least that is my experience in the latest patch.

Play any strategy serious strategy game, and see who has air superiority if not supremacy in France '40. In most cases - unless the game has mucked up some - Germany has it.

What about an effectiveness modifier based on range to target ? Flying a long ways left little time to be effective …. short time over target ….

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: scout1

What about an effectiveness modifier based on range to target ? Flying a long ways left little time to be effective …. short time over target ….

I have thought about this.

[AlbertN]

That would require additional coding.
I believe a measure is already here - the larger is the gap between your current logistic value and your max, the more one recovers Efficiency.
But in pratical terms it is not cutting any edge.

Techs should give a wider gap (in general, not just for airplanes), and Allies need less flying stuff.
Another viable solution would be to have obsolete planes, like pre '39 model with subpar stats. But then they'd just get upgraded.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

That would require additional coding.
I believe a measure is already here - the larger is the gap between your current logistic value and your max, the more one recovers Efficiency.
But in pratical terms it is not cutting any edge.

Techs should give a wider gap (in general, not just for airplanes), and Allies need less flying stuff.
Another viable solution would be to have obsolete planes, like pre '39 model with subpar stats. But then they'd just get upgraded.

Is one of the advancement categories "air tactics" ? Early war allied tactics were grossly dated and non effective compared to the Germans and their experience from Spain ….

[TrogusP96]

Great discussion. Glad to see Brute Force mentioned. Interesting book. Published after WIF came out.

The French aircraft industry was in disarray before the war. So many factors affect fighter performance. I believe the statistics showed that a disproportionate number of kills were by a small percentage of the pilots. Like very good athletes. How to model that? All the other factors are encompassed in efficiency? I thought that the airfields might reflect some of the infrastructure or air HQs and leaders. Also distance might bear on interception rates of success. Doctrine is a factor the RAF started out with the plane flights. Was is one the most imitative behaviors humans engage in so learning can occur and Alvaro has this with the effectiveness increases? I suppose a game should generate a feel factor and air domination over France would be one but the RAF held back too then protected the Dunkirk evacuation. I don't know the French versus German loss ratios. I think there is an expectation that the Luftwaffe will enjoy some kind of initial dominance and that might help offset Allied foresight in the Battle of France. Also it seems players are attacking in the West well before May so the Allied airforces might arguably be more inefficient. On the other hand the UK invested heavily in the RAF from 1936 on and it paid off on the defensive only as Cohen points out. I kind of agree with all the comments and to summarize
So things to consider
1) pre 1939 planes
2) Airfields as infrastructure to increase effectiveness kind of like coastal forts and AA and offers a target for tactical air
3) air HQs for the soft factors
4) Distance as degradation of performance or increase in attrition or more simply increase effectiveness loss like the movement reduction land units suffer which is an awesome game feature (the Japanese experienced this flying from Rabaul to Gaudalcanal so you'd be getting a jump on the Pacific game) and the Allies very much wanted fields in Normandy to reduce cycle times?
5) Detection advancement as factor in interception
Alvaro we don't know everything under the hood or you vision so these are submitted for your consideration and are not intended as criticisms.

Jim

[battlevonwar]

#1 thing to mention the Germans didn't really have the air superiority over Russia assumed. Initially a lot of Russian aircraft were knocked out but they were outdated. As early as 1941 air superiority in Russia isn't what is assumed. ~Resource Kiev 1941

[James Taylor]

After reading "Fire in the Sky" I was immediately impressed with how many operational losses occurred in the air forces of all nations.

Perhaps this could be represented with the effectiveness and experience ratings of each country. It would be an attritional aspect of air units and would obviously be transitional as aircraft become more reliable and the pilots gain experience in flying and navigational skills.

It could even be tied into the manpower and fuel parameters represented in this fantastically featured game thereby granting the historical and real life trend as the Allies gain the upper hand.

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: TrogusP96

Great discussion. Glad to see Brute Force mentioned. Interesting book. Published after WIF came out.

The French aircraft industry was in disarray before the war. So many factors affect fighter performance. I believe the statistics showed that a disproportionate number of kills were by a small percentage of the pilots. Like very good athletes. How to model that? All the other factors are encompassed in efficiency? I thought that the airfields might reflect some of the infrastructure or air HQs and leaders. Also distance might bear on interception rates of success. Doctrine is a factor the RAF started out with the plane flights. Was is one the most imitative behaviors humans engage in so learning can occur and Alvaro has this with the effectiveness increases? I suppose a game should generate a feel factor and air domination over France would be one but the RAF held back too then protected the Dunkirk evacuation. I don't know the French versus German loss ratios. I think there is an expectation that the Luftwaffe will enjoy some kind of initial dominance and that might help offset Allied foresight in the Battle of France. Also it seems players are attacking in the West well before May so the Allied airforces might arguably be more inefficient. On the other hand the UK invested heavily in the RAF from 1936 on and it paid off on the defensive only as Cohen points out. I kind of agree with all the comments and to summarize
So things to consider
1) pre 1939 planes
2) Airfields as infrastructure to increase effectiveness kind of like coastal forts and AA and offers a target for tactical air
3) air HQs for the soft factors
4) Distance as degradation of performance or increase in attrition or more simply increase effectiveness loss like the movement reduction land units suffer which is an awesome game feature (the Japanese experienced this flying from Rabaul to Gaudalcanal so you'd be getting a jump on the Pacific game) and the Allies very much wanted fields in Normandy to reduce cycle times?
5) Detection advancement as factor in interception
Alvaro we don't know everything under the hood or you vision so these are submitted for your consideration and are not intended as criticisms.

Jim

I'd consider too a further spread between techs - albeit in general there.
Anyhow lots of good ideas.
Ideally even 'radar' constructions can be placed.
Airfields in -places- that already allow airfields to add extra recovery (and -cities- count as having already that bonus, assuming they've an airfield built in)

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith

ORIGINAL: TrogusP96

Great discussion. Glad to see Brute Force mentioned. Interesting book. Published after WIF came out.

The French aircraft industry was in disarray before the war. So many factors affect fighter performance. I believe the statistics showed that a disproportionate number of kills were by a small percentage of the pilots. Like very good athletes. How to model that? All the other factors are encompassed in efficiency? I thought that the airfields might reflect some of the infrastructure or air HQs and leaders. Also distance might bear on interception rates of success. Doctrine is a factor the RAF started out with the plane flights. Was is one the most imitative behaviors humans engage in so learning can occur and Alvaro has this with the effectiveness increases? I suppose a game should generate a feel factor and air domination over France would be one but the RAF held back too then protected the Dunkirk evacuation. I don't know the French versus German loss ratios. I think there is an expectation that the Luftwaffe will enjoy some kind of initial dominance and that might help offset Allied foresight in the Battle of France. Also it seems players are attacking in the West well before May so the Allied airforces might arguably be more inefficient. On the other hand the UK invested heavily in the RAF from 1936 on and it paid off on the defensive only as Cohen points out. I kind of agree with all the comments and to summarize
So things to consider
1) pre 1939 planes
2) Airfields as infrastructure to increase effectiveness kind of like coastal forts and AA and offers a target for tactical air
3) air HQs for the soft factors
4) Distance as degradation of performance or increase in attrition or more simply increase effectiveness loss like the movement reduction land units suffer which is an awesome game feature (the Japanese experienced this flying from Rabaul to Gaudalcanal so you'd be getting a jump on the Pacific game) and the Allies very much wanted fields in Normandy to reduce cycle times?
5) Detection advancement as factor in interception
Alvaro we don't know everything under the hood or you vision so these are submitted for your consideration and are not intended as criticisms.

Jim

I'd consider too a further spread between techs - albeit in general there.
Anyhow lots of good ideas.
Ideally even 'radar' constructions can be placed.
Airfields in -places- that already allow airfields to add extra recovery (and -cities- count as having already that bonus, assuming they've an airfield built in)

Like the ideas here...

[ncc1701e]

With the introduction of BF109E in november 1939, replacing BF109D and its old engine, the situation has changed completely on the Western front. MS 406 and Curtiss Hawk H-75 were just beaten in term of speed.

[sfbaytf]

On a separate note, I'm playing the 39 Campaign. I've done the usual subjugation of Poland and Denmark. Didn't build Landing Craft quickly and discovered that just embarking troops on transports doesn't mean you and invade so Norway will have to wait till May...

I have positioned my fighters in the West in anticipation of the invasion of France. In the meantime the French have aggressively decided to try and bomb my units on the Western Front and as a result the 10th French bomber group has been completely destroyed. Is there something built into the AI where air units will stop doing what they are doing and replenish so they are not completely destroyed? I saved turns and replayed 5 times and in each instance the 10th bomber group flew till it was destroyed. I would think that after a certain amount of losses an air unit would stop operations and refit...

I'm really liking this game Alvaro Sousa has really put together a masterpiece, especially considering it appears to be a 1 man operation. I can't imagine what could be if a proper team was assembled to build on the foundation.

[AlvaroSousa]

A.I. shouldn't be attacking after X amount of strength loss or effectiveness loss.

And thanks

[Tejszd]

There are some good ideas to add in the thread....
- time over the target increases damage/impact
- distance traveled affects fatigue and or damage/losses
- radar improves interception odds and possible damage/impact as the pilots know better how to attack an enemy formation