Bug or no?

[Sjoa18]

I captured an enemy airfield and the plane that was based there, upon the AI's turn, immediately nose dive and crashed. I definitely did not attack it in my turn....

[Yogi the Great]

My experience is any plane "stationed" at an airfield does that if the airfield is captured (in air or not) so if you think an airfield could be in danger of being captured transfer all the planes there to a different airfield.

Short answer to the question - Yes it is part of the game

[MickMannock]

I think the airplane only crashes if it doesn't have any alternative airbase within range to rebase to. That's how I've experienced in game, for both my own and the enemy's planes anyway.

[Nalikill]

I think the airplane only crashes if it doesn't have any alternative airbase within range to rebase to. That's how I've experienced in game, for both my own and the enemy's planes anyway.

Can confirm.

More specifically, if the plane cannot execute a valid "Rebase" order on the start of that player's turn, the plane crashes down destroyed.

This means -

1. If you have no friendly bases in range.
2. If it's raining.
3. If it's snowing

Then the plane will crash instead of executing a re-base order.

I've also had my planes ambush enemy planes as the enemy planes automatically executed the re-base order. Not sure if that's a bug or not.

[Kerensky]

I captured an enemy airfield and the plane that was based there, upon the AI's turn, immediately nose dive and crashed. I definitely did not attack it in my turn....

The perfect segway into the latest comic issue.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 2044214000

[Sjoa18]

My experience is any plane "stationed" at an airfield does that if the airfield is captured (in air or not) ...

In the air or not? How can you tell if it's not? All planes look to be in the air, whether they're stationed at a base or elsewhere. It would also be cool to be able to capture planes if you capture an airfield with planes based there....maybe if they have no alternative place to rebase too...that makes more sense than them just nose diving.

[Akkula]

Now that we are talking about the AI and airbases.... I noticed the AI do not take adventage of captured airfields in forward positions.
I performed many tests with custom scenarios and nothing, the AI simply doesnt rebase his aircrafts.
Also there is no command (in the editor) to force it.

[Yogi the Great]

My experience is any plane "stationed" at an airfield does that if the airfield is captured (in air or not) ...

In the air or not? How can you tell if it's not? All planes look to be in the air, whether they're stationed at a base or elsewhere. It would also be cool to be able to capture planes if you capture an airfield with planes based there....maybe if they have no alternative place to rebase too...that makes more sense than them just nose diving.

Sorry maybe should have said returned to base or not. It does work as if the planes are always in the air. Unlike say order of battle where you must land the planes to be repaired or reinforced, here they are in the air (around the base) and can be attacked or attack normally.

[MickMannock]

Now that we are talking about the AI and airbases.... I noticed the AI do not take adventage of captured airfields in forward positions.
I performed many tests with custom scenarios and nothing, the AI simply doesnt rebase his aircrafts.
Also there is no command (in the editor) to force it.

Hard to tell in the campaign because you are almost always on the offensive (up until where I am, which is 1943, Kursk). And when I have been on the defensive, I have never lost any airfields, so the AI have never had any chance to rebase during my playtime.

[Sjoa18]

Thanks guys - just wanted to say that apparently the AI doesn't want to use friendly faction's airfield either. Just played dunkirk and 3 French planes nose dived instead of re-basing to a British airfield farther North. This whole planes losing their base thing seems buggy and not well thought out. I'm sure it can be fixed though in future updates

[sn0wball]

Thanks guys - just wanted to say that apparently the AI doesn't want to use friendly faction's airfield either. Just played dunkirk and 3 French planes nose dived instead of re-basing to a British airfield farther North.

It´s the tea, is it not ? French pilots will rather walk home than to fly from an airfield without sufficient supply of café au lait. I mean, there is milk in the tea.

[Sjoa18]

Thanks guys - just wanted to say that apparently the AI doesn't want to use friendly faction's airfield either. Just played dunkirk and 3 French planes nose dived instead of re-basing to a British airfield farther North.

It´s the tea, is it not ? French pilots will rather walk home than to fly from an airfield without sufficient supply of café au lait. I mean, there is milk in the tea.

LOL - indeed! That thought crossed my mind......

[adiekmann]

If you capture the last airfield that is housing enemy aircraft, does it not make more sense to "capture" those aircraft than see them crash/destroyed? It would be both a more interesting dynamic as well as more realistic too.

[Sjoa18]

If you capture the last airfield that is housing enemy aircraft, does it not make more sense to "capture" those aircraft than see them crash/destroyed? It would be both a more interesting dynamic as well as more realistic too.

agree 100%

[nexusno2000]

If you capture the last airfield that is housing enemy aircraft, does it not make more sense to "capture" those aircraft than see them crash/destroyed? It would be both a more interesting dynamic as well as more realistic too.

agree 100%

Yes.

Edit: Maybe. How many captured planes were actually used in the war? Not very many.

[MickMannock]

If you capture the last airfield that is housing enemy aircraft, does it not make more sense to "capture" those aircraft than see them crash/destroyed? It would be both a more interesting dynamic as well as more realistic too.

agree 100%

Yes.

Edit: Maybe. How many captured planes were actually used in the war? Not very many.

Indeed. They were mainly used for testing and evaluation. So yeah, capturing an airfield should result in destroyed planes, not captured.

[Sjoa18]

agree 100%

Yes.

Edit: Maybe. How many captured planes were actually used in the war? Not very many.

Indeed. They were mainly used for testing and evaluation. So yeah, capturing an airfield should result in destroyed planes, not captured.

that makes sense - I was curious about how many captiured aircraft Germany used - found this, pretty fascinating - especially the P38 Lightning delivered by a defector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_W ... of_Germany
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world- ... -copy.html

[SineMora]

Note that there is a bug in the Persia campaign scenario where the Soviet airforce can be destroyed by capturing a single airfield. The Soviet Union should have access to 3 airfields in the scenario, but the two most northern ones are incorrectly set to be controlled by player 3 (the British), so the aircraft can't rebase to them. At least that was how I had it explained to me when I inquired, because I was puzzled when the entire Soviet airforce crashed despite my just capturing a single airfield.

[Akkula]

If you capture the last airfield that is housing enemy aircraft, does it not make more sense to "capture" those aircraft than see them crash/destroyed? It would be both a more interesting dynamic as well as more realistic too.

I remember we discussed that during the beta.
A lot of ideas appeared but none was implemented. Personally, I would like to see the aircrafts leaving the map.

[Nalikill]

I'd love to see the airplanes shift into your reserves instead so you can just re-deploy them rather than having them get destroyed. That'd be far less punishing to everyone: players and AI.