AI-rbases: Running the gauntlet in late-game

[dorn]

I have already notice what you present akosjaccik .

However I do not think that the issue is with "land air bases".

I would suggest read my sugestions there.

Main issue is with the mission which are done in RTW1 style without air power. This means that in European waters they are close to coast quite often. It does not mind in RTW1 but it is quite issue with air power - land bases.

I will do a small comaprison with real history.

X. Fliegerkorps

This was main German operational air unit in the Mediterranean. It had up to about 500 aicrafts with another force of Italian aircrafts. They attacked shipping near the Mediterranean and do a lot of losses to British shipping. However as long as convoys were protected by aicraft carriers (usually HMS Ark Royal on west and one of Illustrious class on east of the Mediterranean) there was no large losses. It has 2 reasons, German and Italians bombers have no escort and British CAP prove to be quite effective even in very low numbers (just several fighters, quite lower number than usually dozens in RTW2). As long as convoy was under main fleet protection main focuses were to sink carrier which they never achieved. As soon as convoy lost their close protection it was competely different as timing for convoy was that most dangerous part in Strait of Sicily should be sailed through night however not everytime it was possible.

note: strength of Fliegerkorps X

Comparison with RTW:

- it seems to me that airplanes are more effective in RTW2 against ships

- it seems to me that there is no (or low) disruption by fighters - main task of fighters was to disrupt attack not nessesary to shoot down bomber

We can look at mission in RTW which I can see as main issue:

1. invading some territory inside enemy (eg. Italy) - you should be slaughtered as this is completely nonsence mission player chooses itself

2. bombardment mission - this is an issue as it happens historically but it was usually done in night or as part of larger mission, still usually under cover of carrier

note: in RTW2 the main issue is that land targets are usually out of sight in night making them unable to bombard

3. daytime missions with small forces - it is completely nonsence as cruisers has no chance at all - only evacuation of Greece was something that was done under enemy air superiority and still there was at least one carrier trying to cover as much ships as possible

4. starting possition are too close to enemy or to land - How you can get unnoticed just 100 miles from coast just before sunset when range of recons are around 800 miles, bombers around 500 miles etc.

The issue is not only the Mediterranean but Baltic, Channel (having fleet battle in Channel in end of 30s is something really weird) and practically anything near European costs.

Note:
I have already suggested that if airbase is destroyed in combat it is lowered by 1 level but Fredrik pointed correctly that airbases are easy to repair.

The issue was with aircrafts, even Fliegerkorps X. usually operate quite lower than their max. strenght as these units were not priority, there were in repairs etc. We cannot see how much airplanes are operational from squadrons in airbases however we can take assumtion it can be similar to carriers. In reality the operational numbers on these airbases were lower.

And all squadrons have issue to be in full strenght as main recources were going to land base aircrafts for land war. Only USA after production started fully has always enough planes or Allies later in war. In the first years of war all belligerents have that issue.

Conclusions

I can see 2 main issues in RTW right now. Missions are not adapted to air power, especially starting possition, target and relevant naval force that should make it. And that land airbases are fighting each other only during missions.

[akosjaccik]

gornik: I appreciate your work, man, and I'll try it out the instant I start a new game! Thank you!

dorn: I agree with just about all of your remarks, what slight difference we might have is that I don't necessarily expect strict historical outcomes and aircraft numbers in this regard, because - as you pointed out - neither are the missions, nor the ships so (again, base capacity is constant, while resources change with small / medium / large etc. game); and most importantly: gameplay. Italy literally giving up on the fleet and building a system where it can direct at least two hundred strike planes at any given location, practically at any given time IS indeed a viable tactic, the problem is that there are no gameplay elements regarding this from the player's perspective.
Either way, I'll test the lowered capacity "quick-fix". I still expect ABs to sink ships and want them to pose a very real threat - in fact, I might just give back 20 to lvl1, although not a lot more for the last level.

[goodman]

I encountered the same problem trying to fight the Russians in the Baltic. 2 of my BBs were under AI control and my CVs were in their separate task force, so I couldn't fly CAP over those AI BBs, as a result they died to land air.

I think shooting down aircraft needs to be more meaningful. I want a system where you have to spend time and money to build the aircraft in 100s per click, then though aircraft go into a reserve pool, and get used up. This way shooting down aircraft would actually mean something for both you and the enemy.

[admkotyatkin]

May 29, 2019 9:52:18 GMT -6 goodman said:

I encountered the same problem trying to fight the Russians in the Baltic. 2 of my BBs were under AI control and my CVs were in their separate task force, so I couldn't fly CAP over those AI BBs, as a result they died to land air.

I think shooting down aircraft needs to be more meaningful. I want a system where you have to spend time and money to build the aircraft in 100s per click, then though aircraft go into a reserve pool, and get used up. This way shooting down aircraft would actually mean something for both you and the enemy.

Well, that is the idea on why modern navies went off from huge dreadnaughts - they saw that with less manpower and resources they can deviled relatively precise and hurtful strikes using the aviation. Examples like Yamato and Bismarck showed this. In any way, the game counts the lost aircraft to the Victory Points count per my check if they were hurtful. Also, their experience decrease with losses which may be impactful in the late game where aviation is decisive. 

[polyarmus]

I personally see the issue a bit elsewhere.

1. RtW(2) does not model events outside players "domain". AI countries do not fight each other. There are not any battles outside what the player takes part in (with some exception like submarine warfare). Another aspect of war, which is not modeled are the actual operations of the air forces in question. When there are 400 naval bombers around the Adriatic see, not all of them would be available at any given time to take part in a hunt for two lonely destroyers (as mentioned by someone in earlier comment).
The game to an extent (at least in case of carrier aircraft) models breakdowns and operational losses (I wonder, whether it is so also in the case ground based aircraft). However on top of that, the squadrons would have their own operational life - planned missions, training, routine operations like submarine patrols, ... the result of which would be significantly diminished readiness for naval strike missions.
Therefore in my opinion, the game needs to limit the number of available aircraft for missions, in order to more closely simulate general air force operations.

2. Aircraft life cycle is extremely simplified. Potentially also the cost of operating large airforce is understated - I can not substantiate this claim in any way at the moment and I will come back to it later.
It takes month or two to design DD plans and +-15 moths to build a DD. Taking in account the level at which the game handles economics of war, this seems to be reasonable simplification. In case of aircraft, development (and we can assume industrialisation) of new aircraft model takes some time (I never noticed how long actually), but say a year. Which is fine early in the game, would be short in 50's. Nevertheless as a concept it is fine.
But once finished, you can "build" any number of aircraft you want almost instantly at no cost. You will only incur the maintenance (which I will try to evaluate later).
I think we need some mechanism limiting growth of the air forces and speed of replacements.