Improved player control of Land Based Airpower

[cormallen]

I'd not spotted (and "search" hasn't led me to...) any threads asking about this, but has there been any hint that RTW3 will allow (possibly as a C+C "Tech"?) greater player control over
land-based naval aircraft support? More focussed ASW squadrons or designated coastal command forces with greater and more directed cooperation with naval forces perhaps?

One of my gripes with RTW2 is it's very "hands-off" and vague use of land based naval airpower. This simulates early attempts at clumsy coordination OK but after a few years of this sort of thing most navies did manage rather better...

I'd also like more ability to transfer aircraft between carriers (and bases?) during major actions, using support carriers as hosts to bring re-inforcements to the strike groups should be an option for carrier focussed navies by mid-late 1940s tech and doctrine levels perhaps?

The naval focus of the game works well (IMHO excellently) but I've always felt (and judging by the perennial requests for mods that strip aircraft completely I may not be alone here) that RTW2 is rather let down by it's airpower system....at least relatively speaking.

[williammiller]

There are some changes in this area - when things in the game get closer to finalized we will have more details on everything.

[director]

The list of non-cooperating air force and naval units during WW2 is long. Sometimes the co-ordination was bad, or the different services had different radios, or requests had to go all the way up one chain of command and then back down the other. As one example, the lack of cooperation and muddled communication between MacArthur's AAF and the Navy's SE Pacific theater was highly impactful. I'm just not convinced that any nation had the ability to coordinate Air Force and Naval elements until maybe 1944 or later.

Early US defeats in the Pacific led to an extensive overhaul of command structures, doctrine and the use of cross-compatible equipment. 'Jointness' was a very real thing from 1944 to the end of the war, and some of that carried on to Korea, Vietnam and the present day... but it is something that needs constant attention and repetition because 'empire-building never ends'.

I completely understand the desire to develop that capability, but to my knowledge no-one did prior to (maybe) 1943. Perhaps there should be a path to develop it, but based on the historical record it should be difficult and require a very strong motivation.

[jatzi]

Well if we want to use the US learning from mistakes to increase coordination after losing a war then tie it to that. If you suffer losses, maybe heavy air losses during a carrier battle, or land-based losses then that gets better. Maybe have an event where you send ships out to do neutrality patrols or send volunteer airmen to a nation engaged in war, that would also help with training and coordination and whatnot.

Also, part of the land-based losses thing is that somewhere along the line I feel land-based air was made less potent than it was originally when the game released. Ppl seem to disagree with me on the official discord but land-based air never majorly influences battles anymore, even in the med. Often they're slow to launch strikes and usually entirely miss their targets. In the med my experience is that most land-based air is static even if there's an enemy airbase like right there, and bombers just don't do much unless a battle is taking place literally right outside the airfield. I miss the days when you'd have aircraft attacking airbases everywhere and land-based bombers were just lethal. A middle ground maybe? Maybe based around this idea. As a war goes on coordination gets better maybe. Especially if it's a difficult war where you're on the backfoot, which is probably rare for most players but it still happens sometimes.

[director]

jatzi - I don't recall the US losing WW2 , but in general I agree with you. The sole exception is Japanese land-based naval aircraft, who were controlled by the Navy and trained in attacking ships. For other nations, the land-based army or air force aircraft were wither unsuited, unequipped or untrained for naval attack. Hence, when called upon, they were bad at it. 

For the naval powers (Britain, the US, Japan, Italy, France) the rivalries between Army and Navy, and the fight over whether there should be any aircraft controlled by the Navy at all, made co-operation almost insuperable. There were scant resources, intense competition for where the resources went, and absolutely no reason for Army (or Air Force) and Navy to co-operate with each other if they could stick in a knife instead.

That intense, bitter hatred continues, at least in the US armed forces, to the present day. The Army, Air Force and Navy are deeply antagonistic and it takes a lot of 'jointness' to get them to co-operate in operations. Even when commanded (as in various joint fighter programs) the various services actively work to make sure the program will not work.

Co-ordination in operational and tactical situations is a lot better.

[andrewm]

For the British RAF Coastal command cooperated very well with the navy during the war.Before the war the RAF with control over carrier planes did underfund navy development but then again for much of the time there was just a shortage of cash for development. During the war coastal command was a lower priority than either Bomber Command or Fighter Command and getting Bomber command to cooperate with anyone required direct intervention from Churchill, the combined chief's of staff and probably a Direct Divine Intervention and even then for a limited period and grudgingly for like the US the Cult of the Strategic Bomber was their god and little things like stopping u-boats sinking the ships bringing the fuel for the one TRUE bomber offensive was beneath them.
In the med RAF Coastal aircraft did a large proportion of the damage to the Italian convoy's and their spotting was vital for fleet operations in all theatres. German LBA was teh biggest threat to the arctic convoy's during the summer , and Italian and German aircraft was the main threat to the British in the med particularly the malta convoy's.

[director]

andrewm - yes, but... Italian and German land-based aircraft were prone to be put on a job for a short time and then pulled away for other things. As far as I know, there was no co-ordinated fighter cover or bomber attacks as a part of a fleet operation, which would be the definition of co-operation.

If I use US Liberator bombers with Army Force crews to hunt U-boats, that is not cross-service co-operation. Having Army air assets commanded by a naval officer and committed to supporting naval units would come closer to the mark. Using Luftwaffe fighters to escort German naval elements up the Channel is an example of interservice co-operation. It is also a handy guide to the difficulties of trying to make it work.

[vonfriedman]

In RTW2, the Air Force is already expected to use aircraft designed for the Navy. This suggests an organization more similar to that of Japan than to that of Italy or Germany, and therefore one would also expect greater coordination, which on the contrary would seem rather poor.
Perhaps some additions to the so-called doctrine could be envisaged, with related expenses (i.e. personnel, weapons, training) to improve cooperation between the Air Force and the Navy.

[benjamin1992perry]

Are we really seeing Airforce/Army Air Corps in RTW, or are we simply seeing shore based marine/navy aircraft?

[andrewm]

Sept 27, 2022 13:35:17 GMT -6 director said:

andrewm - yes, but... Italian and German land-based aircraft were prone to be put on a job for a short time and then pulled away for other things. As far as I know, there was no co-ordinated fighter cover or bomber attacks as a part of a fleet operation, which would be the definition of co-operation.

If I use US Liberator bombers with Army Force crews to hunt U-boats, that is not cross-service co-operation. Having Army air assets commanded by a naval officer and committed to supporting naval units would come closer to the mark. Using Luftwaffe fighters to escort German naval elements up the Channel is an example of interservice co-operation. It is also a handy guide to the difficulties of trying to make it work.

I was raising one of the few exceptions, and that was somewhat limited. The cooperation of any of the Axis militaries with land based air was dreadful (with the exception of the Japanese Navy's own land based air cover). I don't know much about interservice cooperation for the US , except that getting the strategic bombers to cooperate with anyone else was as bad as getting RAF Bomber command to cooperate.
If I recall correctly at one point for Italian recon aircraft to share information required the message to go all the way up to air force HQ and then be sent by courier to the Naval HQ

[stww2]

One thing that might be worth considering is to have technology that increases the ability of separate airfields to coordinate their own operations-even if the player has little control over them. My impression is that currently in RTW2, even if you amass a large concentration of land-based air in a region, it will ultimately conduct its attacks in piecemeal fashion, and thus never approach the potency of coordinated carrier air power-particularly as CAP and interception techs make escorted strikes ever more vital. Now I don't know what the history is on cooperation between multiple airbases; there may well be good reasons for limiting this that I'd be curious to hear. But I have to figure that at least as you approach the tail-end of the timeframe RTW3 aims to cover, such coordination should be possible.

[arminpfano]

Oct 1, 2022 11:55:47 GMT -6 stww2 said:

One thing that might be worth considering is to have technology that increases the ability of separate airfields to coordinate their own operations-even if the player has little control over them. My impression is that currently in RTW2, even if you amass a large concentration of land-based air in a region, it will ultimately conduct its attacks in piecemeal fashion, and thus never approach the potency of coordinated carrier air power-particularly as CAP and interception techs make escorted strikes ever more vital. Now I don't know what the history is on cooperation between multiple airbases; there may well be good reasons for limiting this that I'd be curious to hear. But I have to figure that at least as you approach the tail-end of the timeframe RTW3 aims to cover, such coordination should be possible.

Very true!

I found myself reducing my land based airforce during the time I play RTW2, up to the point that I only put a small number of recon aircrafts on two or three airfields in the main war theater. Aircraft are just too expensive to invest a lot of money. Nowadays I concentrate on big carriers with lots of planes, and I think the cost efficiency is much higher this way.

Dunno if it is intended by the system or the makers, but because of this I find myself in a typical (and historically correct) position of a navy responsible: It is logical to fight for the budget against the army (I NEVER give them anything if I am asked about "indecisive trench warfare") and also the Airforce. As long as the money goes into my ships and their planes I am sure it is invested wisely ;-)

[TheOtherPoster]

I guess in rtw2 coastal air defense is part of the navy's tasks, not the air force. That's why we have to fund it, decide on planes types and numbers, etc.
Maybe in rtw3 could be a way to improve their efficiency, kind of advance training for land bases that will make them better. Although I believe in WWII the land based strike units often were not as good as the ones from the carriers, not surprising as the later where supposed to be the elite units in the navy.

I myself tend to reduce the land based airpower to a minimum, manually reducing land bases capacity to 40 (or sometimes even 20 when playing a Mediterranean country, where there are so many air bases). That way I limit their effect on the naval battles which I think is quite accurate

[JagdFlanker]

this is completely the opposite of what the OP wants lol, but it's the same ballpark i guess and there's no suggestion thread (for obvious reasons)


might be fun to have an option where the Air Force handles all the land based air power so the cost doesn't come out of the Navy's pocket - or perhaps have that being the case if certain government types are in power

if the Air Force is in control the player has zero control over land based aircraft development, land based air search (airships should still be Navy controlled), as well as airgroup types and makeup on land bases

going even further and using Goering as an example (he wanted total control of anything and everything that flew in the German military), could have the option of having the airforce in charge of all aircraft development and you have to use whatever aircraft they decide you are using (again could depend on and change with government type). if they decide they don't like torpedo bombers then i guess you'r stuck with dive bombers, or you'r stuck still using your old 1921 bi-plane torpedo bomber into the 1940s because that's the only torpedo hauler you have

[director]

I've been saying for a while that the most consequential decision for a nation's military in the age of aircraft is who gets control of the air arm.

You have three nations (The US, Japan and the UK) who separate naval aviation from the 'real' air force (although Britain reversed that decision with disastrous results for the Royal Navy). You have others (France, Italy, Russia, Germany) who removed aircraft from naval control and centralized it either under the army or in a separate air force. For all of these countries, carrying out air operations took a lot of time and practice to master. Carrying out operations against ships is another step up in difficulty - and aircraft controlled by the army or air force almost always resist being taken away from their 'real' (IE preferred) missions, making co-operation with the navy a veritable impossibility.

There could be a decision that a player must make: either spend a lot of prestige and money to keep control of naval aircraft or take a cheaper option and surrender it to the army or air force. There could be periodic prestige costs for keeping a separate naval air arm, with loss of control if you fail or decide not to pay.

This would be a complicating factor, and it may be a headache the dev team don't wish to take on. But permitting every navy to pick its own aircraft and man its own airbases is not historic - and then depriving the navy of control over the aircraft it has bought and paid for, just seems wrong. THis may have been a necessary compromise, but it does feel like the player gets the worst of both choices.