More aircraft involvement during the strategic turn

[dia]

This post in part of my series on improving later game combat and warfare, see thread here. The aircraft section ended up getting long and complicated so I thought it would be more appropriate for it to be it's own thread.

Allow aircraft to contribute to the strategic turn. Like bombing convoys, protecting convoys, enforcing blockades, attacking shipyards, etc. Isn't it a little ridiculous for example, that AH has over two dozen CAs, CVs, CVLs, and over one hundred subs in two ports and that they're all within range of even my heavy-loadout fighters? The following includes six potential missions for aircraft to be performing during the strategic turn. Important to note, when I say missions below, I do not mean to suggest that these are one time events. For the purpose of how they are applied in the background workings of the game, yes, they are one time events so to speak. However, they are supposed to represent a series of naval air operations taking place over the course of an entire month.

• Mission 1: Allow land-based aircraft to bomb (delay) ships and subs under construction if one of their bases/ports in their build area is within range of a friendly airbase (applies to MB only). Only aircraft stationed at bases within range can participate.
  
  • The point of this is to allow some kind of resemblance attacking support facilities. Would only really be viable in the later game and in Europe, maybe Japan or the US depending on their enemy.
    
  
  
• Mission 2: Allow land-based aircraft to destroy subs in port if they have a lot of them (applies MB, TB, and DB only). Only aircraft stationed at bases within range of enemy bases/ports can participate.
  • Because **** sub spam.
    

  
  

• Mission 3: If the enemy or player is constantly denying battles and/or blockaded, start increasing the likelihood of ships being bombed in port if land-based aircraft are within range (MB, TB, and DB only). Because these ships are in port, greatly reduce the chance of these ships actually being sunk. Allow ships under repair to be further damaged and extend their repair time - this can be treated as a separate mission since certain aircraft won't be able to use torpedoes on dry docked ships, but the parameters listed below will remain the same. Only aircraft stationed at bases within range of enemy bases/ports can participate. Take into account how many bases/ports the enemy has and whether or not they're all within range of an attackers airbase. Also take into account the base capacity of the possession a base/port lies in, the total base capacity of a region, and a base/port's size (this is not base capacity, if you look in the MapData folder, each base/port is assigned a base size). Most importantly, take into account whether the bases are part of the home region or not. It is assumed a nation will station most of their ships at home. Outside of home sea zones it should be dependent on base capacity of the possession the bases/ports belong to and to a lesser extent the size/importance/ranking of individual ports.
  
  • For example, take country A at war with country B. Country A has 10 bases/ports split into 4 possessions in a sea zone that is not their home region, but has a significant force stationed here. Three of these possessions have a base capacity of 20. The fourth has a capacity of 150. Country A is refusing to sortie. Country B has airbases (equipped with aircraft) within range of 6 of those 10 bases/ports. However of the 4 bases not within range, three belong to the possession with the highest base capacity (150) in the sea zone (that Country A owns). Therefor, country B is not expected to do much damage to Country A's ships in port as it is assumed most ships will be in the possession with 150 base capacity.
    
  • Another example, same setup as above, but this time all of Country A's bases/ports except one are within range of country B's air bases. Country A's possession with the highest base capacity (150) has three ports. Two of these ports are within B's range, but the third isn't. The third also happens to have the larger base size. Therefor, country B is expected to do damage to Country A's ships in port, but not as much as if that third port was also within range as it is assumed a good chunk of ships will be there.
    
  • One more example using the same setup as above, but this time 3 of Country A's 10 bases/ports are within range of country B's air bases. All three belong to Country A's possession with the highest base capacity of 150. The remaining ports all belong to the other three possessions with a total of only 60 base capacity. Therefor, country B is expected to do more damage than not to Country A's ships in port.
    
  • Another example, new setup. Country A is refusing to sortie and has kept most of their fleet in their home sea zone. None of country B's air bases are within range of country A's home bases/ports. Therefor, country B is not expected to do much if any damage to Country A's ships in port. And vice versa if country B has plenty of airbases within range of country A's home bases/ports. The best in game example of the latter is if country A was Austria-Hungary and country B was Italy.
    
  • The purpose of this whole section is that the more a player or AI declines battles, the more it should be assumed their ships are being kept in port. It also gets the player or AI thinking about where they want to buildup their bases and distribution of base capacity points in different sea zones.  Certain sea zones may benefit from spreading out a your base capacity, while others may call for building it up in a single possession far out of range of other possessions. Finally it forces the player or AI to invest in airbases and equipping airbases with fighters if they choose to decline battle after battle. 
    

  
  

• Mission 4: Allow land-based aircraft a low-chance to damage ships in general if they're operating in areas with lots of enemy air bases and little friendly air bases or ship-based air cover (take allied CV's, CVL's and air bases into account). So sort of like what do subs do, but honestly toned down (applies MB, TB, and DB only).
  • Purpose here is prevent anyone from waltzing into a sea zone surrounded by enemy air bases with no air cover. Encourages equipping airbases with fighters or bringing CVL/CV when operating outside home region.
  • Calculating this is very difficult if not downright impossible. My only idea is that you would have to take into account the area covered by aircraft ranges, for each type and loadout, divide that by a total sea area of a sea zone (which the game certainty does not measure) and compare that to the same results you get when doing it for the defender (but using fighter-light load ranges instead). And that's not even factoring in defender CVs or CVLs. I feel like if you have to be able to factor in area because sea zones like northern Europe and the Med have very different circumstances than the Indian Ocean or Central Pacific. Basically you want to be able to measure how much ocean in a particular sea zone is covered by enemy aircraft, but not overlapped by friendly fighters with CV's and CVL's representing 100 fighter coverage. So if country A covers 80% of a sea zone and country B fighter coverage overlaps 50% of County A's 80%, then that means Country B's ships are only presumed to be under air cover in 40% of the sea zone, which means a higher chance of B's ships getting caught without fighter cover. CVs and/or CVLs with fighters would boost Country B's fighter coverage to 100%.
    
  • Personally I'd rather see this feature not implemented at all if can't be calculated to fit the different sizes and densities of bases of different sea zones. A simple "A has x number of bombers in sea zone, B has x number of fighters" would maybe suffice for the Med, but not in places like the Indian Ocean or Central Pacific.

  
  

• Mission 5: Allow land-based aircraft to contribute to trade warfare by attacking convoys and merchants, if the attacker has airbases in an area where their enemy has possessions (applies to MB, TB, and DB only - but also fighters too once they reach a certain bomb load and only if the enemy has no defending fighters in the area). This suffers from the same issues as the last point but I think it can be simplified because trade warfare itself is simplified and abstracted. I've come up with two possible ways to implement this.

  • Idea A: In general, air attacks on convoys would be scaled to how many sea zones the defender has possessions in that the enemy also has air bases and land-based aircraft in. Higher value of possessions means more potential merchants to be sunk with Northern Europe and home sea zones being the most high value. Higher number of attacker aircraft that get assigned to trade warfare missions means more opportunity to sink merchants. Defender air bases equipped with fighters and CV's/CVL's on TP would globally reduce the potential merchants to be sunk and cause attrition to attacker aircraft.
  • Idea B: Alternatively, air attacks on merchants and convoys in general would be rare and scaled to the number of sea zones that share defender possessions and attacker air bases to simulate attacks on trade routes. The exception is when friendly ports are within range of enemy air bases, it can be assumed attacking aircraft would be focusing on merchants and convoys traveling to and from those ports. You don't need to bother factoring in defending fighter ranges, it should be assumed just having them stationed at a port will provide CAP to convoys moving to or from said port. Having CVL's and CV's on TP would assume some air cover is being provided to all friendly ports and boosting air cover in ports with air cover of it's own. Yes it's silly to assume CVs and CVL's can be everywhere at once, but TP in general is already silly.
  • I'm torn between which I like more. A seems less complicated, but doesn't factor range at all unless you factor longer range bomber=higher chance of coming across enemy merchant which is simple and fine by me. B on the other hand really shines when it comes to playing in the Med. Further explanations will be operating on the idea that Idea B is implemented.
    

  
  

• Mission 6: Allow land-based aircraft to contribute to enforcing blockades (not contributing to them). Allow them to attack raiders and blockade runners if there are air bases in range of the enemies home region bases (applies to MB, TB, and DB only).
  
  • By far the most simple in my opinion and should be the most rewarding. If the enemy is blockaded and friendly ports are within range of their home ports, aircraft can be sent on missions to hunt raiders and blockade runners. This can result in either damaged or sunk raiders or sunk merchants. Local CAP and carriers CAP can contribute to attacker attrition and the chance of blockade runners and raiders getting away.
    
  
  

• DO NOT scale any of the above like submarines are. You can easily win any war with enough subs alone. The same shouldn't be true for spamming aircraft. Limit the amount of damage they can do.
  
• Take aircraft stats and bomb loads and load-out ranges into account when attributing damage done or if any damage is done at all. Maybe allow the player to choose in the doctrine tabs what ranges/load outs can be used (e.g. allow for light or medium loadouts if the range is too great for heavy or never allow light loadouts etc). Or just let the game decide like it already does for land based aircraft during battles.
  • For attacking ships in port, dockyards, and subs in ports (missions 1-3), enemy bases/ports must be within range and the damage done is determined by the bomb load that the aircraft can carry. For example, let's say enemy bases are within range of an airbase with 20 MB's, 20 TB's, and 20 DB's. The MB's can attack on heavy loadout, the TB's on light, but the DB's are not within range at all. Therefor, only your MB's and TB's can participate, but the TB's aren't likely to do much damage
    
  • Once who can participate is determined, combat stats will determine how well the attackers will perform once over target as it is assumed AA will always be present and causing attrition. Combat stats of the attackers will determine if they can hit the target and what kind of attrition they'll suffer from AA. The presence of defending CAP and escorting will be discussed later.
    
  • Bomb loadout and aircraft type will determine damage done. It's assumed MB's and TB's will level bomb (with guided bombs possible for MB's if available) when attacking building ships, subs, and ships under repair or torpedoes if attacking ships in port (ships in port, not under repair, only) but DB's can dive bomb and cause magazine detonations (ships in port, not under repair only). Like I pointed out before, the chances of sinking a ship in port are very low, unless the magazine is detonated.
    
  • For attacking merchants/convoys, this can be simplified. Combat stats will determine if the attackers are driven off, damaged, or destroyed based on an assumed AA factor and the combat stats of defender air cover if available. Assume AA will be always present but lighter than on land. The number of possible merchants to sink will be determined by one of the two ideas I listed in mission 5. In idea B, performing mission 5 when not within range of an enemy port will produce few results. When operating within range of enemy ports, the value of the possession determines how many merchant are potential targets. For the sake of simplicity, you cannot kill more merchants than attacking aircraft. Actual bomb load doesn't matter as much, but perhaps there could be a dice role where torpedoes are most likely to sink a merchant and light bombs least likely. To keep merchant losses low, the attacking aircraft would have to have a huge stat bonus and escorting advantage to overcome enemy air cover. If a defender has fighters covering all ports (that lie within range of enemy airbases) and have CVL's on TP, than merchant losses to aircraft should be extremely minimal.
    
  • Missions 6 works similar to a combination of port attacks and trade warfare in that aircraft are attacking near a port, but are targeting warships. Thus AA attrition is dependent on the blockade runner's AA which can be a lot heavier. The presence of defending CAP and enemy carriers will be discussed later. The top speed and equipped air search radar of raiders help contribute to their escape.
    

• All squadrons should be limited to doing only one of the above five missions (six if you consider going after ships under repair a separate mission) per turn or none all. Strike squadrons will not be split up like in battles, but can be "merged" or "coordinated" if assigned to the same air base and mission. How they are assigned can be determined by the following in order of importance:
  
  • Availability of targets: if there's nothing to attack and the enemy is blockaded, squadrons will do nothing
    
  • Strength: Squadrons with losses from a battle or previous strategic turn are less likely to do anything until brought back to full strength.
    
  • Home possession port vs non-home possession port: If both a home region port and possession port are in range of the same airbase, the home region base will be given priority (allowing for better chances of actually finding ships to damage). For example, the airbase in question is Olbia on Sicily. Corsica is next door, but southern France - a home possession - is just beyond that. Olbia would focus on southern France.
    
  • Grouping: The most deciding factor is if all available aircraft on a base can participate in a single mission, with the exception of mission 1, and only applies when an airbase has multiple aircraft types (not including PB's and F's). This is to get the most aircraft in a single "wave" and to limit the amount of escorts needed (will be discussed later). From this point on Mission Priority listed below will take over with further factors possibly shaving off squadrons from the group attack. For missions 2 & 3, any squadron that doesn't have the range to join the group (either because of older model or type) will sit it out or do it's own mission. If both an enemy home region port and possession port are in range of the same airbase, but certain aircraft types or models cannot reach the home region port, those models/types may initiate a separate attack on the possession port (though keep in mind since the enemy home region is so close by, the likelihood of doing damage is a lot lower). Using Olbia again, if the DB's at Olbia can't reach southern France but the MB's can, the DB's will likely target Corsica instead.
    
  • Mission Priority: This applies to bases with multiple aircraft types (not including PB's and F's). The following missions will be given in order of importance or be allowed to be ranked by the player in the doctrine tab. Individual aircraft types can have their own order of importance
    
    • Bombing ships in port if the enemy is declining battles or blockaded
      
    • Bombing ships at sea (if implemented) 
    • Bombing subs in port
    • ships under repair
      
    • trade warfare
  • Bomb-load range: For missions 1-3, squadrons are more likely to sit things out if they can't reach a target on it's heavy load or will perform missions 4 (if implement) or 5 instead. 
  • Aircraft Role+stats: This mostly applies when a base has only a single aircraft type (not including PB's and F's). MB's will be more inclined to go after ships/subs under construction, subs in port (aka going after sub pens), damaged ships in port, and trade warfare (if equipped with torpedoes); TB's will be more inclined for ships in port or nothing. Longer range stats will increase inclination to trade warfare. Lack of defending CAP or availability of escorts will encourage bombing subs or ships under repair (both level bombing); DB's will be more inclined for attacking ships in port. Longer range stats will increase inclination to trade warfare. Lack of defending CAP or availability of escorts will encourage bombing subs or ships under repair
  • Availability of escort and estimated enemy defenders: Prior to anything happening, an airbase will check it's own fighter availability (see discussion later) and estimate (boosted by intelligence) what kind of CAP the enemy will have at the closest enemy bases. If the computer doesn't like the odds, there won't be any attacks and other missions may be chosen. Because specific ports aren't being targeted per say, the computer can't choose a lesser defended port.
    

  
  

• It is important to remember that for missions 1-3, specific enemy bases are not being targeted, but the closest one will be the chosen as a "target" to serve as a stand in for a point on the map to center the air "battle" on.

  • For example, attacking Pola doesn't mean the entire Austrian fleet and dockyards is in Pola. It's just that Pola is closer to all enemy airbases than Fiume.
    

• During the strategic turn, a single enemy or friendly port may be attacked by multiple aircraft or "waves" from multiple air bases. All these attacks happen at once, but the attrition and chance of doing damage is applied on a airbase/mission basis. There is no stacking of bases for the attacker.
  
  • For example, Take AH's Pola. Pola has 40 F's defending. From Venezia comes 20 MB's, 20 TB's and 10 escorting Fs doing mission 3. From Ancona comes 20 MB's doing mission 1. Also from Ancona come 20 DB's on medium load doing mission 3. The aircraft from Ancona will suffer extra attrition for not having escorts. The attrition the CAP suffers will be from fighting all aircraft. The player is informed at the end of a turn through a message that an Austrian cruiser was damaged and X amount of aircraft of x type were lost.
    

  
  

• Allow for land-based fighters to greatly reduce or even negate enemy strategic air attacks on ships at port and and in the docks - missions 1-3. They will also cause attrition on the attackers. CAP fighters can receive attrition depending on the defensive stats of the attacker and presence of escorts.
  • Fighters will be pooled together on an airbase. A CAP pool (one for each fighter model in case you have squadrons with different models) will be created with all fighters going into the pool and a minimum number of CAP fighters (more on this later) set which is determined depending on the suspected number of aircraft the enemy could throw at it. Intelligence is key here as poor intelligence could mean bad CAP setup. If the port is attacked, the CAP fighters will defend the base. If nearby airbases are equipped with CAP fighters, aren't under attack, and within the fighter model's light load range, they will assist the port that is currently under attack. There may be cases where multiple ports can be attacked at once. In that case, the non-attacked ports will always assist the home region port first or if both or none are, the closest.
    
  • In summary, airbases can cover eachother
    

  
  

• Take the attacker's fighter ranges and availability into account. If fighters don't have the range to properly escort or aren't available and the defenders have CAP, the above attacks will be mostly useless and cause high attrition or just be canceled outright.
  • Escorts will be pulled from an airbase's CAP pool and assign to escorting missions. The number of aircraft will be determined by the suspected enemy cap (intelligence is key) and how many missions an airbase will be taking part in. This is why having a smaller number of large strikes will be preferred. Bad intelligence can lead to not sending enough escorts or sending too many and not leaving enough behind. Furthermore, an airbase will never allow the number of fighters for CAP to go below the determined minimum number of CAP fighters. So if you only have enough fighters to meet that requirement or less, there won't be any for escorting and there's a good chance no missions will be sent.
    
  
  
• Allow CV's and CVL's on TP to greatly reduce land-based aircraft attacks on convoys. Allow nearby friendly air bases to protect convoys too. Any fighter pooled for CAP work will be assumed to be protecting trade. Land-based fighters will not take attrition for their supposed role in defending convoys (they already suffer enough), but fighters on the TP CV's and CVL's can.
  
• When a nation is blockading and the enemy is sending aircraft on mission 6, allow CV's and CVL's on AF and land-based CAP to contribute to protecting blockade runners and escaping raiders. Like above, land-based fighters will not take attrition for their supposed role in escorting raiders out, but aircraft from CV's and CVL's will.
  
• In cases where an airbase is not in range of another enemy airbase, spare fighters can be sent on mission 5 if the fighter model is equipped with at least 500lb bombs.
  
• All ports are assumed to have a level of AA that is tied to anti-aircraft artillery tech level and air search radar level. The higher both are, the higher the AA factor will be thus causing more attrition and less damage.
• All ships presumed to be attacked in port, except those under repair, will contribute their AA and air search radar to the overall AA attrition and survivability. Aircraft aboard CV's and CVL's in port do not partake in their defense.
  
• Allow CV's and CVL's on AF to greatly reduce strategic land-based aircraft attacks on friendly ships (e.g. so if you send a fleet to the Med, they won't get decimated just by transiting). Like I said in the description for mission 4, having CV's/CVL's present is considered to have a 100% air cover in a sea zone, depending on how those missions get implemented. Ship speed and AA defense will reduce the chances of being damaged. Fighters on AF CV's and CVL's do not take CAP attrition. It's just assumed enemy aircraft stay away You need those fighters for battle.
  
• Remember as one nation is defending it is also attacking, so they're doing both simultaneously. Except if one nation is blockaded or refusing to sortie.
  
• This may all seem very complicated, and believe me it is, but you have to remember that almost everything above is happening behind the scenes. However, it does get the player to think about and consider a few things
  • Keeping track of aircraft ranges on the campaign map (which means that would need to be implemented first)
    
  • Making sure air bases have appropriate amount of CAP
    
  • Deciding on how to equip air bases - remember airbases with multiple aircraft types have different mission priorities. You may wish to keep rear bases fighter heavy (if they can provide CAP support to frontline bases) with MB's only while frontline bases get a mixture of types. Different combinations can be used to mold what missions may end up getting assigned most. It is up to the player to decide which is most effective. It may be different every campaign.
    
  • Repeating myself here, but it gets the player or AI thinking about where they want to buildup their bases and distribution of base capacity points in different sea zones. Not to mention actual location of where you put your air bases.

• At the end of the turn, the player is given an air combat summary that lists total air losses taken and inflicted, friendly damage reports (subs lost if any, construction delays if any, ships lost/damaged if any), and enemy reports (subs lost if any, construction delays if any, ships lost/damaged if any). This would be very similar to the trade warfare screen. In fact, I'm thinking mission 5 results should be listed in the trade warfare summary. That's all there is. No need to list any details about the individual missions or what squadrons did what. Unless you really want that info, but I think that would had an extra layer of complications.
  

  
  

Despite this wall of text, I am not expecting massive amounts of causalities on either side. Like I said, don't turn aircraft into the new subs. Keep it balanced but interesting.

You should still be expecting land-based aircraft to show up in numbers during battle though, but at reduced the numbers. There's one thing I haven't figured out yet and that's when to have the strategic air combat take place. Personally I don't know at what stage of a turn aircraft squadrons are reinforced.

Like submarine warfare, it probably makes sense to have it happen after battles. But in that case, that means you're still going into battle with fuller strength land-bases and depending on how intense the battle is, will be going into strategic air combat with very depleted bases. But if it happens before a battle, you can end up going into battle without knowing some of your ships got damaged or sunk prior. Personally I'm inclined to go with the former. Going into battle followed by strategic air combat should cause enough attrition in a single turn that the next battle won't be as land-based aircraft heavy.

I haven't even talked about flying boats/patrol bombers yet, but I think I'll wait until next post.

[dia]

[reserved for flying boats/patrol bombers]