We need an option to disable Land Airbases.

[director]

I'd support a system whereby players had to choose - at a very steep price in prestige and etc - to have a separate naval air force or not. Or it could be the default for the US, Japan and Britain, with all others not. This would not include flying boats, scout planes and the like - just fighters and strike aircraft.

If a nation does not have a separate naval-strike airfleet then the player has to barter money (prestige?) to get aircraft dedicated to CAP and naval strikes for a month (as Germany and Italy did in the battles for Malta).

[aeson]

Feb 25, 2020 22:10:49 GMT -6 director said:

I'd support a system whereby players had to choose - at a very steep price in prestige and etc - to have a separate naval air force or not. Or it could be the default for the US, Japan and Britain, with all others not. This would not include flying boats, scout planes and the like - just fighters and strike aircraft.

If a nation does not have a separate naval-strike airfleet then the player has to barter money (prestige?) to get aircraft dedicated to CAP and naval strikes for a month (as Germany and Italy did in the battles for Malta).

I am against this as long as the Navy is solely responsible for the costs of developing and maintaining land-based aircraft and their bases, because you'd effectively be double-billing the Navy for what's already a very, very expensive investment. Maintaining 120 single-engine aircraft already costs more than operating a 40,000t fast battleship or battlecruiser; the player should not be assessed a surcharge just to have the use of them in a battle that takes place somewhere that the planes can reach. If the Navy's solely responsible for the costs of the development, organization, training, and maintenance of the land-based air groups and the bases for them, then they belong to the Navy and not to some hypothetical joint Army-Navy or independent Air Force, or at the very least the cost of obtaining the use of them from such an Air Force is already being paid - especially if the player is disinclined to go through the micromanagement involved in shutting down air groups in peace time and reestablishing air groups in periods of hightened tensions or war.

Also, flying boats and floatplanes eventually become strike-capable, and while it would certainly be a downgrade in capability I doubt if coming under attack from hundreds of floatplanes and flying boats would really be all that preferable to coming under attack from hundreds of torpedo bombers, dive bombers, medium bombers, and fighter-bombers, especially later in the game when even floatplanes might be lugging around thousand-pound bombs. If you add a penalty to the use of land-based torpedo bombers, dive bombers, medium bombers, and fighters for missions in support of the navy so as to reflect certain historical realities about the quality of the cooperation between various branches of the armed services but do not apply the same penalties to land-based flying boats and floatplanes, then you run the risk of encouraging the even more ahistorical approach of developing and deploying a massive strike-capable fleet of flying boats and floatplanes.

One last thing - a prestige cost would be either irrelevant or crippling to the computer's use of land-based air power, depending on how it's implemented, because the virtual players neither have nor can lose for lack of prestige.

[dorn]

Feb 25, 2020 18:02:37 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

I'm not sure land airbases need to be disableable, but a few things that I think the late game really needs:

1) Every late game engagement needs to begin with the player's fleet leaving harbor, and needs to last at *least* 2000 turns. The player needs to be able to plan his entry and exit strategy (ships wait outside of air range until nightfall, surface ships hit bombardment targets after dark and retreat by dawn, carriers launch attacks on airbases with the alpha strike scheduled to hit at first light). I'm quite confident I could manage even the Baltic or Adriatic with such a setup, but spawning in range of enemy air at high noon ***sucks*** (why would my admiral be stupid enough to put himself in this situation, and how was I not sunk before I spawned?). I wanted to see this in the RTW1 days just because I really liked the operational scale missions in SAI campaign mode, but after 1930 or so in RTW2 I consider it a critical QOL feature that would really help with a major pain point.

2) Land based air should be generally much worse at strikes on shipping than naval air (as they often were IRL), unless the player pays through the nose on training.

3) All categories of LBA but floatplanes, flying boats, and maybe TBs (which still can carry bombs for ground strike) should be routinely raided by both the player and AI armies for inland missions, effectively removing them from action for affected missions. The number of planes poached by the army on either side (and an estimate for the enemy) should be part of the information on the accept/decline screen for a battle.

4) The number of planes per airbase per tech level should probably be what it is, but should need to be reached by several airbase expansions at each tech level instead of one, at current costs per expansion. So building out a 20 plane airbase at TL 1 should take two expansions of ten planes or four of five planes, rather than one of twenty planes (counting the initial build as an expansion from zero planes), with the cost to build each expansion being equal to the current cost of a twenty plane expansion.

They are all nice suggestions which can increase quality of RTW. 
Issue with point one is that the distance should be dependent on aircrafts range, not fixed. Actual scenarios seems using more fixed position and AI need to handle it quite well. 

If we look into history even in the Mediterranean there were available hundreds of aircrafts against British but operational number was lower far from 1000 planes available in RTW in some cases.
There is one missing point in RTW2 and that priorities were usually for aircrafts operating over land not over sea so such higher numbers which we can see in RTW2 was difficult to obtain in history.

[millsian]

I'm currently in 1947 as AH starting 1900 game - I have noticed more a/c in the 2 wars since 1940 even with 'slow aircraft development' set as I wanted to keep impact of a/c limited.

As AH in limited ocean space my AA fit out is maxed out with DP/HAA and LAA/MAA maxed out even at expense of main armament

[director]

aeson - no, I don't think the player should be responsible for developing, maintaining or purchasing aircraft for a land-based force.

As far as the 1000-floatplane strike... well... cost and proper stats should take care of that. Floatplanes were usable for scouting during most of WW2 but most did not have the stats to serve as effective strike aircraft. If the player wants to build a lot of them and lose them to AA fire and proper fighters, so be it.

I don't see any issues with implementing this that couldn't be solved with a bit of balancing... and getting rid of the land-based waves of death would be a benefit.

[rimbecano]

Feb 26, 2020 0:24:48 GMT -6 aeson said:

If you add a penalty to the use of land-based torpedo bombers, dive bombers, medium bombers, and fighters for missions in support of the navy so as to reflect certain historical realities about the quality of the cooperation between various branches of the armed services but do not apply the same penalties to land-based flying boats and floatplanes, then you run the risk of encouraging the even more ahistorical approach of developing and deploying a massive strike-capable fleet of flying boats and floatplanes.

Part of the issue here is that some situations that did not occur in history can occur in game: IRL, the set of powers with significant navies was disjoint from the set of powers with territory adjoining cramped seas at the time of WWII. If Germany had had something like the High Seas Fleet, and the Russians had had something similar, with either navy having its own land-based air arm, strategies that strike us as wildly ahistorical might actually have been viable, and this is fairly likely to happen in-game. The war between Germany and Russia could have involved a very interesting Baltic naval campaign.

[akosjaccik]

One thing I'd point out is that the "reduce or more favourably, scale automatically/manually the land-based capacity" solution was brought up, at least on my part, because the actual implementation seems to be the simplest, most robust and a way the AI can most likely cope with.

[oldpop2000]

Feb 25, 2020 3:33:29 GMT -6 cabusha said:

I loved Rule the Waves 1, and love the new options that Rule the Waves 2 has brought.  The new, carrier-based gameplay is pretty cool and has seen rapid improvements.  The Land-based Air though, honestly, is just painful.  I seldom play a campaign past 1940 as it turns into nothing but "Ships approached by aircraft" messages that will drag a mission into 1400 or 1600 tics of me, un-pausing, over and over again as I'm continuously bombarded by land based aircraft.  It's just unfun.  There's no player input and the game is entirely RNG as this point.  

And it's equally easy to game the AI with it.  The Germany 1920 start with "all the treaties" is trivially easy because all you have to do is build Land-based aircraft bases, put heavier than air research to high, and pick a fight.  Build a few fast scout cruisers and use them to pull their navy into your flying death swarms.  Tada!  Who needs a navy?

Seriously, I would love for there to be an option to disable land-based aircraft bases entirely, as they pretty much dominate what should be the coolest new feature, the Aircraft Carrier.  

In my opinion, disabling airfields except for weather is pushing the game into an ahistorical area. With the development of aviation, land-based aircraft became vital for scouting, ASW, trade protection and trade warfare. Germany, considering its geographical location in the middle of European Peninsula.... that's right, Europe is a peninsula, is not a maritime power. It has only needed a coastal fleet with heavy,  medium and light bombers along with fighters and dive bombers to control the Baltic and the North Sea. The HSF of WW1 was an aberration caused by the Kaiser's love of warships, but it was more of a waste of resources. It really only needed corvettes, destroyers, light cruisers, battleships(few) and submarines to really control the North Sea. She could get the natural resources she need from the Balkans, Sweden and other areas that were reachable by roads and railroads. 

Italy actually is in the same position. Except for the Baltic, an enclosed sea, the Black Sea, again enclosed and the Sea of Japan plus the Sea of Okhotsk which enclosed and narrow in some cases, Russia has really needed a large fleet. Only into the 1960's did she feel the need and frankly, any fleet would have been cut down trying to get out to the North Atlantic. 

Airfields are very difficult to put out of action. With hardened runways or even crushed coral with metal runway plates, the runway's can be made operational very quickly. The revetments can be made to protect the aircraft along with sufficient AA guns around the field. The ammunition and fuel dumps can be put into the ground, if needed or in the heavily forested areas.  The most vulnerable parts are the hangars, but with Quonset huts which are easily repaired and replaced, hangar's can be maintained although they are not entirely needed for aircraft maintenance. The most important aspect for an airbase in a force to protect it from the surrounding area and a decent aircraft warning system plus if necessary standing patrols around the area to intercept incoming aircraft. Good scouting by any aircraft that are available is necessary. Flying boats, dive bomber are generally the best suited.

Just my take on this subject. 

[oldpop2000]

Feb 25, 2020 9:16:51 GMT -6 director said:

The best argument against allowing nations to build massive naval-strike airfleets is that they did not do so, and did not do so because they more urgently needed their aircraft for land operations.

Had Germany or Italy gone full-in on naval airpower there is no doubt they could have closed the Mediterranean to the Royal Navy - at, perhaps, the cost of land campaigns in the Balkans and Russia.

Of the three nations that did develop robust naval-strike airfleets, two were islands (Britain and Japan) and the third (US) might as well have been. Had a continental power tried to build a large naval-strike airfleet, those aircraft would have been co-opted by the senior service (army) and effectively removed from naval control.

So I am in favor of very sharp restrictions and/or caps on building a large naval airfleet for Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Austria or any other continental power. I am in favor of alternate history and I enjoy exploring possibilities, but I can't see that this is even remotely likely.

I cannot agree with your conclusions. I agree that had Germany and Italy fully developed a naval attack force using their bombers, the fighting the Baltic, Med and North Sea, and the Murmansk Run might have been different but only with adequate fighter support against the carriers that were available to the Allies. Germany had two Kampfgruppe that were dedicated trade warfare but should have created and equipped many more.  Unfortunately you cannot defense France and Germany plus put fighters up in Norway to protect your land based bombers. Same with Italy, in both Sicily and North Africa.

I think we need to let the game go down the "path not taken" and but not allow it to be completely ahistoric. The game should stay within the realm of the possible, but not go into fantasy.

Here is a link to a site with a list of gruppes and squadrons deployed by the German's for coastal work. Translation on the site is possible. www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/lw/see.htm

[tortugapower]

I'm just going to chime in with a "temperature gauge" (so to speak) of the general public: the majority of players that I talk to (sample size of 20?) dislike the late game. I hear many folks who end the game (as mentioned here) when aircraft become too powerful and especially as land-based aircraft dominate.

It's tough to say what the solution is. It's a complex problem, but I think it is a legitimate complaint. There is the historical trend towards dominance of land-based aircraft over time, but there's a complex interaction therein which is not yet well-represented in RtW2.

Some items:
1. The balance of building aircraft for naval activity versus others
--> Very complex, but not modeled or very coarsely abstracted in-game
--> Nations like Japan highly prioritized naval aircraft. Nations like Russia shifted most of the industrial might into non-naval aircraft. Some nations chose to prioritize multi-role aircraft as a means of mitigating the industrial loss to the ground forces of a naval-only airplane design.
--> Wherewithal to replace aircraft after losses. The U.S. were fine to push heavy resources into the navy as the war progressed; the Germans were less interested.
(I understand this would be incredibly difficult to model in-game.)

2. Naval commanders reaction to land-based aircraft
--> Battle generator making decisions that no sensible admiral would make, like endangering a CV fleet by putting it too close to the enemy's land-based naval bombers.

3. Arrangement of coordination between land- and sea-based assets.
--> Somewhat related to #2, but the naval positioning should also try to take advantage of CAP shields available from friendly airbases.

(and more I'm sure)

Where RtW2's CV battles thrive right now is where they should: in the Pacific. Unfortunately, there's almost never a situation where a battle is generated there.

#2 and #3 are one of my own problems with the game: the huge disconnect between the Player on the Strategic level, and the Player in the Tactical level. Although arranging the disposition of fleets into sea zones, we are then ignored while the battle generator determines a battle. Maybe more player-guided battle generation would alleviate this.

[dorn]

tortugapower

You point things out quite nicely. 
The issue is that RTW2 engines is based on RTW1 and a lot of things is limited by that way. Scenarios are quite static, as starting positions are defined and than (my estimation) some adjustment in position allowed.

Question is if there is possibility to make things happened without changing game a lot as I expect excellent ideas which needs a lot of time to implement are less likely to be done than good ideas with much less time needed. 

Some of your suggestions could be relatively easily implemented, some not so easily.


Point 1
I think that it could be tweaked quite easily by adjusting production and land base aircrafts loses between turns. And there can be coefficient for each nation to production of navalized versions of aircrafts.
Japan can be quite high, USA too (industrial superpower), Russia, France on opposite side, rest probably somewhere in the middle.

Point 2
This is really the issue, having Pacific war as it was is practically impossible in today RTW2 because all main battles are simulated in mainlands of one of the belligerents. And scenarios are quite defined in files. But I do not know how exactly was done one change in some of the patches increasing range of carrier battles. I expect by changing starting position.

However it is quite difficult to balance everything. As can be seen during WW2 (it does not need to be same in period before or after that), even small number of fighters over fleet with good fighter direction can change land based attack on fleet tremendously. However without that fighter coverage the effect is usally devastating. 

I do not know if CAP adss suppression to bombing attack or torpedo run but it should against any aircrafts they engaged.

[director]

oldpop2000 - my original point was that continental nations could and would not develop a separate naval air service because of politics, expense and the superior pull of the elder service (IE the Army). Any attempt by Germany or Italy to build up a major naval air force was going to be trumped by the Army's need for planes, gas and pilots.

Germany struggled to produce the small number of heavy bombers it dedicated to naval service, and both the German and Italian navies struggled to get air assistance for naval operations. In the Med, Axis airfcraft were brought in for short periods either at Army insistence (prepping for an invasion) or after a lot of naval pleading.

We can disagree - I'm voicing an opinion here - but I do think my idea would solve some issues in the late game. It does take control away from the player, which players would hate but which is more historically plausible.

[oldpop2000]

Feb 26, 2020 19:30:59 GMT -6 director said:

oldpop2000 - my original point was that continental nations could and would not develop a separate naval air service because of politics, expense and the superior pull of the elder service (IE the Army). Any attempt by Germany or Italy to build up a major naval air force was going to be trumped by the Army's need for planes, gas and pilots.

Germany struggled to produce the small number of heavy bombers it dedicated to naval service, and both the German and Italian navies struggled to get air assistance for naval operations. In the Med, Axis airfcraft were brought in for short periods either at Army insistence (prepping for an invasion) or after a lot of naval pleading.

We can disagree - I'm voicing an opinion here - but I do think my idea would solve some issues in the late game. It does take control away from the player, which players would hate but which is more historically plausible.

I am trying to follow the middle road here. I want the game to follow, generally, the historical path, respecting the fact that geography cannot be changed. But I want the game to be able to allow the player to go down "the path not taken" provided it is within the actual geographical, economical and political capability of the nation with variability. 

If you read Werner Bambach's book, "The Life and Death of the Luftwaffe" especially on the chapter on the Battle of the Atlantic, you will read about the decision made in 1942 to use the available squadrons of JU-88's as dive bomber and attack convoy's around England. This was done because the U-boat were being pushed westward by the Allies. You see that the units in Norway actually stopped the Murmansk Run completely due to their successes. It was too little, too late but the attempt was made. So, could Germany with a little effort have moved forward quicker? Yes, so let the game allow the players to do that. Italy was the same.

I believe that the game can stay within certain historical constraints, but at least have some latitude to explore some interesting "what if's". Without it, the game will be boring. When you study history, you have the ending and can judge the events leading to the beginning. However, you, the reader, were not there when the decisions were made, so you have the advantage. Don't judge without walking a mile in my moccasin's. 

[cabusha]

Part of the issue is the ability of the AI (or player for that matter) to spam out air bases in every single coastal port in each province. Perhaps if they were limited to 1/province, or a minimum based upon the number of cities rounded down to the nearest whole? EG, Japan's home province has 6 buildable ports, so 6/2 = 2 max airports.

[garrisonchisholm]

I feel quite strongly that the current land-based air system is historical and correct for the game. If land-based air makes it impractical to enjoy carriers in the 40's and on in Europe, well there is a reason carriers developed more fame and utility in the Pacific.

The key to surviving land-based air in the late 30's and on is to be selective with your battle choices, to know when to walk away and know when to run, and willing to let the other side step out into a VP lead.

If a large number of people feel fun is at stake (it is a game after all) & want to be able to disable land-based air by a tick-box, one could certainly lobby for such a feature to be added at the start screen, though heaven knows how much time it would take when we would rather have Fredrik spend his development time on fixes and planned features.


- please understand that this is my opinion being expressed, and not automatically that of NWS.