Strategic bombers

[Vorskl]

BRIEF: unit statistics for some airplanes should be changed to improve gameplay

LONG: I am replaying DCL-1941 and decided to use Royal Navy at Crete to improve my Strategic bombers (SB). But... I was not able to reach some leftovers of the Royal Fleet as they were out of reach, hiding in the map corners.
That's the issue I recall from the SCW, Warsaw, Brighton etc: SBs have roughly the same distance as the rest of airplanes, so they cannot reach some places on a map. Considering that SBs are probably the least appreciated class in the game, let me make the case for improving their performance and gameplay. The attached table is units.csv file (since there is no range parameter I guessed 'speed' is the proxy) grouped with real-life performance data from Jim Winchester's 'Military Aircraft visual encyclopedia' book.
- Extend the range of SBs. We are not hunting 'Bismarck' or 'Hood' in the middle of Atlantic, most of the maps are quite small for the actual range of SBs. I was astonished that the flying cardboard aka Fi-156 has better range than Do-17Z, whereas its real-life range was similar to T-34 at best (!). If you read about KG-51 'Edelweiss' at the Eastern Front, they were based south of Kiev but had daily flexibility to bombard Kharkov, Sevastopol or Tuapse based on military needs and weather conditions. In the case of Crete, we should be able to reach all points on the map.
- Rebalance ammo (both ways). Do-17z are Hs-129 are the prime candidates for nerfing
- Increase the slot and /or prestige cost of SBs to reflect their utility
- just like other classes already have, introduce a SB-specialized hero. Fast Rebase + Lethal Attack + smth else as a suggestion
- make SBs (some models - He-111 and Ju-88 and their derivatives) switchable between bombs and torpedoes just like AT/AA works. That'll be handy in 1942 Crimea / PQ Convoys / Caucasus scenarios + North Africa + US Pacific + Atlantic scenarios. Torpedoes should be 1 ammo per plane but one-shot destroyers and half-shot battleships
- if Fi-156 gets what it deserves (a significant cut on range / visual recon range to bring it back to reality), then finally an iconic Fw-189 Uhu could be introduced - with better parameters

[Magni]

That's the issue I recall from the SCW, Warsaw, Brighton etc: SBs have roughly the same distance as the rest of airplanes, so they cannot reach some places on a map. Considering that SBs are probably the least appreciated class in the game, let me make the case for improving their performance and gameplay. The attached table is units.csv file (since there is no range parameter I guessed 'speed' is the proxy) grouped with real-life performance data from Jim Winchester's 'Military Aircraft visual encyclopedia' book.

That's not an issue, considering those ships are entirely irrelevant to your objectives. Also, least appreciated unit type? Small-calibre artillery, towed anti-tank guns and recon planes still exist.

- Extend the range of SBs. We are not hunting 'Bismarck' or 'Hood' in the middle of Atlantic, most of the maps are quite small for the actual range of SBs. I was astonished that the flying cardboard aka Fi-156 has better range than Do-17Z, whereas its real-life range was similar to T-34 at best (!). If you read about KG-51 'Edelweiss' at the Eastern Front, they were based south of Kiev but had daily flexibility to bombard Kharkov, Sevastopol or Tuapse based on military needs and weather conditions. In the case of Crete, we should be able to reach all points on the map.

Frankly a luxury that would make little to no impact on actual gameplay in the vast majority of scenarios. And distances are entirely subjective to begin with, considering we have things like Warsaw taking up more map space in one scenario than the entire distance between Novgorod and Leningrad in another, just for one example.

- Rebalance ammo (both ways). Do-17z are Hs-129 are the prime candidates for nerfing

Why tho? Like, does this actually ever make a real, substantial difference? Waste of time, really.

- Increase the slot and /or prestige cost of SBs to reflect their utility

So let me get this straight, you want to make what you're calling the least appreciated unit type in the game more expensive to deploy? In exchange for "buffs" that are frankly wholly meaningless in like 99% of all actual scenarios encountered in play? And this is supposed to help make them more appreciated?

- make SBs (some models - He-111 and Ju-88 and their derivatives) switchable between bombs and torpedoes just like AT/AA works. That'll be handy in 1942 Crimea / PQ Convoys / Caucasus scenarios + North Africa + US Pacific + Atlantic scenarios. Torpedoes should be 1 ammo per plane but one-shot destroyers and half-shot battleships

The very high naval attack rating on these already simulates this. And then this idea that it should half-shot BBs... yeah, that's just crazy. If you buff most ships' AA to be able to semi-reliably one-shot strats perhaps. Else that would be ludicrously whack, and basically trivialize the entire naval game. And one-shotting destroyers is equally crazy, and even less realistic. Torpedo bombers generally didn't go after destroyers for the most part, because they were extremely hard to outright impossible to actually hit that way. And one ammo per plane is yet again functionally meaningless and only ever a handicap if you decide to put one of the best heroes in the game on a strat bomber of all things.

- if Fi-156 gets what it deserves (a significant cut on range / visual recon range to bring it back to reality), then finally an iconic Fw-190 Uhu could be introduced - with better parameters

If the Fi-156 "gets what it deserves" according to you, you may as well delete it from the unit database and then put in your Uhu with exactly the price and stats of the Fi-156 right now. Recon planes are incredibly niche and barely used as is.

[Scrapulous]

Vorskl, a lot of your unit suggestions would be easy to implement. Why not make a "Vorskl Variant" of the equipment file and put it on the Steam Workshop? I like some of your ideas and have concerns about others, but that's all speculation. Nothing compares to actual testing.

[Tassadar]

What I like about these suggested changes is that they do not require anything aside from changes to the Units.csv, do not break the game balance and at a very cheap cost greatly increase the accuracy of unit stats. Even if we ultimately never get that fan favorite Fw-189, I would still love to see a large Units.csv review as part of a future patch one day to address such small things that would make units more unique and accurate. As suggested here and in other threads, there's nothing really stopping players from editing the csv file to their liking, if not new models get added it does not require modding skills, but I'm a fan of official updates to such data instead of the "Bethesda" approach.

[Duedman]

The thing that annoys me the most when using stratbombers is their weak range.

But (as was mentioned already) the scenarios have wildly differing scales.
Aircraft should easily be able to cover a city. And that they can not is a bit of a bummer.

But for that to be changed, some kind of a "range multiplier" for different mapsizes would be necessary. I doubt that can be done with modding some csv files.
Also, while I dislike it, Im willing to accept the current state as a way to keep things simple.
Otherwise I would always have to ask: Ok, so how far are my bombers gonna fly today?

[Quin1936]

Only wish there was a Fw 200 Condor to solve the range problem, although the He111Z helps a lot.

[o_t_d_x]

Regarding range of planes: its not realistic, but its more fun.

Exampel: Stalingrad: Normally it should be no problem to reach everything on the map. Its quit stupid that your bombers cant cover a city and need closer airfields. But in gaming reality its just more fun, you have to plan which airfields you need to conquer fast.

Regarding stratbombers: i dont agree, i like them - i use them whenever i have 1 or 2 slots free. Whith the right hero these planes are very good. (suppr. to kills hero or no suppression for bomber through flak) And against warships they are a must have. (to me this is the real realism problem, never heard of strategic bombers sinking warships, they have been very good in killing masses of old man, women and children in german and british cities, creating firestorms that burned hundred of thousands of civilians and they were very good in destroying industry, but ships ??? ... shouldnt there be some german torpedo bombers like the old british ones instead ???) Another good use: if you want to capture units they are good in suppressing without killing. And only 2 slots, if you take an old one (good enough for ships and supression) only ONE slot. And you can have a little bit overstrength without the need vor extra slots.

Maybe a REALISM DLC in the end of dlc developement would be cool: maps (not an easy task regarding distance, dont know if the engine can make such big maps), units, supply, air support, ragne etc...

[Vorskl]

Regarding stratbombers: i dont agree, i like them - i use them whenever i have 1 or 2 slots free. Whith the right hero these planes are very good. (suppr. to kills hero or no suppression for bomber through flak) And against warships they are a must have. (to me this is the real realism problem, never heard of strategic bombers sinking warships,

As a starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Baumbach
+ Tallinn Escape of the Soviet Baltic Sea Fleet
+ Luftwaffe operations over the Black Sea (Mannstein was able to capture Sevastopol because the city ran out of supplies, arty projectiles first of all; that's because Luftwaffe eliminated virtually every single ship that was moving in/out of the city)
+ Luftwaffe raiding Soviet ships on Volga between Saratov and Astrakhan
+ PQ caravans raiding
etc etc - I bet Atlantics saw many more examples

As for the costs, see the attached table; For comparison, Bismark cost was 198MM (!!)

[o_t_d_x]

Thx for the answer.

But arent old planes (biplanes) with torpedos more effective and cheaper ag. ships ? Isnt it much easier to hit a ship with a torpedo then aiming with bombs from high altitude ?

When the nazis had so many strat. bombers, why didnt they bomb the brithish INDUSTRY, instead of terror bombing civilians in london ?

Looking at all the prices for military equipment an old rule of war seems to be right again: gold wins wars. In that regard, the capitalists had a big advantage. The nazis wasted too much money and ressources for non necessary projects: bismark, prora, cruisers for hollydays for german workers, olympia. (When my enemys are so much richer, then i shouldnt waste my money and ressources.) And they should have placed their industry under the alps from the beginning, but göring was so sure that never an enemy plane would reach germany ever

[George_Parr]

Thx for the answer.

But arent old planes (biplanes) with torpedos more effective and cheaper ag. ships ? Isnt it much easier to hit a ship with a torpedo then aiming with bombs from high altitude ?

When the nazis had so many strat. bombers, why didnt they bomb the brithish INDUSTRY, instead of terror bombing civilians in london ?

Looking at all the prices for military equipment an old rule of war seems to be right again: gold wins wars. In that regard, the capitalists had a big advantage. The nazis wasted too much money and ressources for non necessary projects: bismark, prora, cruisers for hollydays for german workers, olympia. (When my enemys are so much richer, then i shouldnt waste my money and ressources.) And they should have placed their industry under the alps from the beginning, but göring was so sure that never an enemy plane would reach germany ever

Warning: long wall of text incoming

There were various types that were effective against ships. Using torpedo bombers was one of them, but those were generally easy targets. The old biplane torpedo-bombers usually belonged to British carriers, no one else really used them anymore. Most of the attacks came from land-based bombers though, so while you can find a few famous attacks (Bismarck, Taranto) by and large torpedo attacks came from "normal" bombers. Dive bombers were more effective, as they could dive straight down onto their targets and hit the less defended deck. The Germans also used the JU 87 in such a role. High-level bombing was usually ineffective. The Americans did a few attacks on the Japanese that way, and most of them didn't hit anything.

Strategic bombers in the game aren't necessarily strategic bombers in the common sense though. Germany didn't really have any heavy bombers the way the British did, outside of maybe the HE 177. They mostly aimed at using their bombers to help out ground forces, so most of their bombers were 2-engine ones that could only carry a limit amount of bombs, and nothing like the heavy bombs used by the British and Americans later on. This also meant that they flew at lower heights than the heavy allied bombers and didn't really have the ability for carpet bombing. So while a B-17 might be ineffective against ships in its usual method of bombing stuff, other strategic bombers could use different means. The Germans made use of guided bombs to target ships (e.g Fritz X) or had them carry torpedoes (e.g. Ju-88 or He-111). Quite a few of the bombers that fall under the strategic bomber category in the game were good against ships. The issue mainly stems from the need to push a broad range of plane type into just two different sort of bombers. This will always cause a bit of a grey area. Add the need for game-balance and thingd get even harder.

Terror bombing wasn't something that Germany used in the early going against the British. They started off by going after radar installations, then they switched to airfield and airplane-factories. When they targeted placed near London, the British countered with an attack on Berlin, which in turn caused Hitler to order attacks on London itself. For the most part this was still about broadly going after factories though. Just like Allied attacks were mostly against targets that held industry or important military facilities. Specifically targeting civilians on a grander scale didn't happen until much later in the war.

I don't think the things you mentioned where that much of a waste, especially not on a grander scale. The Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't a waste, their mere existance forced the British to keep lots of heavy forces around and invest in having enough capital ships. If Germany had focused solely on U-boats, than the British coul have spend their entire effort on countering them as well, which would have been much easier than building large ships. Germany also had no sea-lanes to colonies that could be threatened, unlike Britain, so German capital ships in the Atlantic would be a huge threat to the British, and since the Atlantic is quite large, they would need a massive force to successfully defend against surface-raiders. Basically, one German capital ship could send half the available Royal Navy on a wild goose chase, as you needed that many ships to find it, and couldn't afford to let it run wild. Remove the need for the British to enhance its navy against a possible German threat, and you leave them with far more resources in other areas as well.

Efforts to make life better for workers is hardly a waste. You need to keep the people happy, or you are screwed. Some of that may have been excessive, but if you want to see the people buy into your rule, you need to have something to show for. The Olympics were actually something given to Germany prior to the Nazis coming into power. And while they made it quite a bit more expensive than truly necessary, it also was an excellent propaganda tool for the regime.
The Nazis certainly didn't have the means to fight a prolonged war, but then again, they never planned to do one anyway. They wanted quick and decisive wars. They were wasteful and corrupt when it came to using their resources, but even if they had managed to plan well, it still would have made no difference. Their entire approach required all or nothing all the time.

Placing industry into mountains and caves prior to the war wasn't anything anybody would have thought of. That's only something you can see through hindsight. Airplanes didn't have these sort of capabilities in the 30s. Defending against this in such a way would have required knowledge about what the future would hold. There are also significant disadvantages to operating in such a way. First of all, it is much harder to get all the materials and workers to these remote places. It also takes years to build up such an infrastructure, while you already have regular factories all over the country. Enhancing those is much cheaper than forcing tunnels into mountains. Then you have to add that German workers might not have been all that thrilled about building those tunnels and working under the ground at all times. Especially when there was still peace at that time. Building the facotories into the mountains did make heavy use of slave labour after all, something not available early on.

One also shouldn't forget that German production peaked in 1944, a time at which the Allies had control of the skies and could bomb factories almost with impunity. So for all the damage they caused, their effect was still somewhat limited when looking at production as a whole.

[adiekmann]

- if Fi-156 gets what it deserves (a significant cut on range / visual recon range to bring it back to reality), then finally an iconic Fw-190 Uhu could be introduced - with better parameters

If the Fi-156 "gets what it deserves" according to you, you may as well delete it from the unit database and then put in your Uhu with exactly the price and stats of the Fi-156 right now. Recon planes are incredibly niche and barely used as is.

Yes, I understand the controversy surrounding air recon planes. PC1 was missing them and player demand for them got them included. If they are not used much is true. But let's look at the reasons why.

I used them quite a bit in SCW, but like most maps, once you get to know them you don't really need it. You know where everything basically is. In fact, outside of SCW, I don't always deploy a regular land recon unit either. Then, in AO41, you have so many scenarios where either the weather limits your use of aircraft or there aren't any Soviet aircraft present. Yet, land recon units can do more than spot. They have fighting abilities. These will eventually be of increasingly limited value too as the war progresses, but the point remains: they can fight and be effective in more ways than just spotting.

Not so with the current air recon planes. You're right; the Fi-156 probably shouldn't have even been included in the game. The devs' mistake was including it, rather than the Fw 189. The Fi-156 was more of a taxi for Wehrmacht officers than a battlefield recon aircraft. The Focke-Wulf was originally designed as a light bomber and even as a recon plane carried some defensive armament among other advantages. In other words, it would not be so one-dimensional and would therefore probably be used more often by players. Later in the war, they become perhaps even more so valuable than ground recon units who become very vulnerable to enemy tanks in the second half of the war. But if they kept it at 1 or even only 2 slots, it becomes a great value over the more expensive (and yet still rather vulnerable) ground recon units.

[adiekmann]

The whole "Gameplay vs. historical/realistic" debate/issue always makes topics like this difficult, and when you add the "different sized map scales" to the equation...it becomes a very difficult problem without a simple solution as many already have correctly pointed out above. Otherwise, I have initially agreed with Vorski as I have with tank and other similar issues that he has brought up in other threads. But once again, the deeper you dive into these topics the more complicated it becomes to effectively implement across all maps/scenarios.

In the end though, I think gameplay considerations must win out and take precedence.

[o_t_d_x]

Thx for the answer.

But arent old planes (biplanes) with torpedos more effective and cheaper ag. ships ? Isnt it much easier to hit a ship with a torpedo then aiming with bombs from high altitude ?

When the nazis had so many strat. bombers, why didnt they bomb the brithish INDUSTRY, instead of terror bombing civilians in london ?

Looking at all the prices for military equipment an old rule of war seems to be right again: gold wins wars. In that regard, the capitalists had a big advantage. The nazis wasted too much money and ressources for non necessary projects: bismark, prora, cruisers for hollydays for german workers, olympia. (When my enemys are so much richer, then i shouldnt waste my money and ressources.) And they should have placed their industry under the alps from the beginning, but göring was so sure that never an enemy plane would reach germany ever

Warning: long wall of text incoming

There were various types that were effective against ships. Using torpedo bombers was one of them, but those were generally easy targets. The old biplane torpedo-bombers usually belonged to British carriers, no one else really used them anymore. Most of the attacks came from land-based bombers though, so while you can find a few famous attacks (Bismarck, Taranto) by and large torpedo attacks came from "normal" bombers. Dive bombers were more effective, as they could dive straight down onto their targets and hit the less defended deck. The Germans also used the JU 87 in such a role. High-level bombing was usually ineffective. The Americans did a few attacks on the Japanese that way, and most of them didn't hit anything.

Strategic bombers in the game aren't necessarily strategic bombers in the common sense though. Germany didn't really have any heavy bombers the way the British did, outside of maybe the HE 177. They mostly aimed at using their bombers to help out ground forces, so most of their bombers were 2-engine ones that could only carry a limit amount of bombs, and nothing like the heavy bombs used by the British and Americans later on. This also meant that they flew at lower heights than the heavy allied bombers and didn't really have the ability for carpet bombing. So while a B-17 might be ineffective against ships in its usual method of bombing stuff, other strategic bombers could use different means. The Germans made use of guided bombs to target ships (e.g Fritz X) or had them carry torpedoes (e.g. Ju-88 or He-111). Quite a few of the bombers that fall under the strategic bomber category in the game were good against ships. The issue mainly stems from the need to push a broad range of plane type into just two different sort of bombers. This will always cause a bit of a grey area. Add the need for game-balance and thingd get even harder.

Terror bombing wasn't something that Germany used in the early going against the British. They started off by going after radar installations, then they switched to airfield and airplane-factories. When they targeted placed near London, the British countered with an attack on Berlin, which in turn caused Hitler to order attacks on London itself. For the most part this was still about broadly going after factories though. Just like Allied attacks were mostly against targets that held industry or important military facilities. Specifically targeting civilians on a grander scale didn't happen until much later in the war.

I don't think the things you mentioned where that much of a waste, especially not on a grander scale. The Bismarck and Tirpitz weren't a waste, their mere existance forced the British to keep lots of heavy forces around and invest in having enough capital ships. If Germany had focused solely on U-boats, than the British coul have spend their entire effort on countering them as well, which would have been much easier than building large ships. Germany also had no sea-lanes to colonies that could be threatened, unlike Britain, so German capital ships in the Atlantic would be a huge threat to the British, and since the Atlantic is quite large, they would need a massive force to successfully defend against surface-raiders. Basically, one German capital ship could send half the available Royal Navy on a wild goose chase, as you needed that many ships to find it, and couldn't afford to let it run wild. Remove the need for the British to enhance its navy against a possible German threat, and you leave them with far more resources in other areas as well.

Efforts to make life better for workers is hardly a waste. You need to keep the people happy, or you are screwed. Some of that may have been excessive, but if you want to see the people buy into your rule, you need to have something to show for. The Olympics were actually something given to Germany prior to the Nazis coming into power. And while they made it quite a bit more expensive than truly necessary, it also was an excellent propaganda tool for the regime.
The Nazis certainly didn't have the means to fight a prolonged war, but then again, they never planned to do one anyway. They wanted quick and decisive wars. They were wasteful and corrupt when it came to using their resources, but even if they had managed to plan well, it still would have made no difference. Their entire approach required all or nothing all the time.

Placing industry into mountains and caves prior to the war wasn't anything anybody would have thought of. That's only something you can see through hindsight. Airplanes didn't have these sort of capabilities in the 30s. Defending against this in such a way would have required knowledge about what the future would hold. There are also significant disadvantages to operating in such a way. First of all, it is much harder to get all the materials and workers to these remote places. It also takes years to build up such an infrastructure, while you already have regular factories all over the country. Enhancing those is much cheaper than forcing tunnels into mountains. Then you have to add that German workers might not have been all that thrilled about building those tunnels and working under the ground at all times. Especially when there was still peace at that time. Building the facotories into the mountains did make heavy use of slave labour after all, something not available early on.

One also shouldn't forget that German production peaked in 1944, a time at which the Allies had control of the skies and could bomb factories almost with impunity. So for all the damage they caused, their effect was still somewhat limited when looking at production as a whole.

Thanks for this interesting long post.

[scorehouse]

this is ez. first in the Advanced options introduce the Luftwaffe General Option. make it more like the Recon Option with increased range and accuracy. for range, say 1-2 for fighters, 2-3 for tactical bombers, 3-5 for Strats. for accuracy, 5-20%? I'm not sure how aircraft increase accuracy other than thru aiming assistance. is there an accuracy increase % per experience * gained?

[Khancotlette]

The question of strategic bombers' (and all other planes) range is the same question which is the cornerstone to pretty much everything in the game — the map scale. And for me, the answer is ambiguous. On one hand, it's impossible gameplay-wise to 'fix' it somehow, because all scenarios of the vanilla game are, as it was already mention in this thread, vastly different in the means of the scale. Which would work on one map will never work on another one, and the example of Stalingrad is just the most obvious one. However, on the other hand, there is a solution — since the last patch, it's possible to make custom units.csv and all other critical files, and implement them in the editor! So, I guess, for now it could be solved only one way — by making a mod with correct stats and correct maps to use them. But there is still some hope that the coming air-combat rework which was promised for the Pacific would do something. Anyway, it's possible for us, the community, to improve the situation, and for that — many thanks to the devs!

P.S. Prestige doesn't have anything in common with the production cost or any kind of real money, so, I guess, the cost is not really an issue here.

[Tassadar]

There's one balance related thing that does come to mind with strategic bomber. Without fighters they are sitting ducks. And while having even 20 range would allow the to attack remote targets, they still can only deal suppression and will get swarmed by fighters if they fly far like this. So the range argument is not that much of an issue, this still limits their operational usefulness, at least if the player does not want to risk losing them. It's also in line with the historical dilemma of WWII where many nations struggled to provide their bomber fleets with escorts all the way to the target, Battle of Britain being a good example.

[scorehouse]

in 43 the 8th AAF suspended operations due to the tremendous losses.

[Wolfenguard]

There are no benefits for destroying all RN Ships.
In my last playtrough I sunk all enemy ships and don't get a msg or something else

[BaronVonKrieg]

There are no benefits for destroying all RN Ships.
In my last playtrough I sunk all enemy ships and don't get a msg or something else

yup, if you destroy all of the ships nothing rlly changes, you dont get the transports or something, you only miss out on a message telling you how Italians are bad if you save them