[BtS] Merged Mod

[Xenomorph]

Would you know how to change it so that bombers don't abort their missions if attacked by flak? Like the mod allows air missions to continue, if the interceptor is shot down?

Not really. I just figured out how to integrate his code into the game without it crashing. Can't say I've payed a whole lot of attention to how well it worked.
I'll start up a game in the Industrial age and see if I can't get some air wars going to test it out.

 

[Dale]

Just so you're aware, RtW contains some SDK code to make AA units function correctly.

 

[arstal]

Similar tech requirements. I think the flak guns should just require artillery.

As for the anti-tank guns, they should require less then the AT infantry, since the AT infantry are stronger.

 

[Ninja2]

Thanks Dale. I'll see if I can figure out how to port that over. Any hints?

Arstal: AT infantry has the same requirements as in Wolf's mod, which as I recall is Rocketry. And Rocketry requires Flight + Artillery. So AT infantry is still two techs up from the AT Gun. I might ease the requirements for flak to artillery + assembly line, I actually thought of that while planning this. Bear in mind, this is just the first attempt, though.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Is that just a wild guess? The RAF turned to night bombing in WW II because of the high kill rate on their bombing runs. I reckon what did Nazi-Germany in was the sheer amount of bombers sent in on missions. (I'd agree that fighters 'd be more effective, but they lost air superiority around 1941-'42, taking in account all fronts.)

I don't make wild guesses about WWII, what I stated was based on fact.

The reason the RAF turned to night bombing has nothing to do with FLAK and has everything to do with the Luftwaffe being a lot more effective in daylight. Remember, the RAF abandoned daylight bombing even before the US was involved in the war, and at a time the Luftwaffe was still very-much effective... in other words, the RAF turned to night bombing, because the Germans were deploying a very effective counter (ie: fighters). The best thing the Germans could do in the early part of the war when the RAF switched to night bombing was FLAK... which the RAF really wasn't all that scared of. Just because the RAF switched from daylight to night, don't assume the reason was FLAK... the reason was that the Luftwaffe was still very much intact in 1940/41 before the US entered the war.

The RAF rolled their eyes at the US when they entered the war and said they would bomb in daylight... they in-fact insisted that the Luftwaffe was too dangerous and would destroy the USAAF. American strategy was very differant then British though... the British didn't have effective targetting devices and simply relied on mass-bombing "in the general vicinity" of the target... something you can do at night... because night bombing is very innacurate to do anyways in WWII, so the British just dumped a lot of bombs anytime they were over a city.

American strategy was very differant... they had the (at the time) top-secret Norden Bombsight... which was (theoretically) incredibly accurate... but required daylight bombing... the Americans also had the heavily armed and armored B-17 Flying Fortress, which they believed could fight it's way through any fighter force (this was later proved wrong, but hey, that's what they believed at the time).

The British had experience of over two years of fighting the Germans before America entered the war and were sure that the Luftwaffe was too dangerous to face in daylight... the Americans had the Norden Bombsite and the B-17 which they insisted needed daylight and could fight it's way through the Luftwaffe. Most of the American casualties in the bombing runs over Germany were caused by the Luftwaffe... not by FLAK. The Luftwaffe was so effective in stopping American bombers, that at one point the Americans almost gave-up daylight bombing, much like the British had... it wasn't until long-range fighters such as the P-47 and P-51 came along that the Luftwaffe was finally beaten-down (with other fighters), that once the Luftwaffe threat was eliminated, the Bombers had free reign (with or without FLAK).

In other words, the history of WWII itself, proves the points I've been making all along... it's the fighters that determine control of the skies, not ground based FLAK... it was the fighters of the Luftwaffe that the British feared and switched to night bombing for... it was the fighters of the Luftwaffe that nearly forced the Americans to do the same... it was not until the long-range fighters of the Americans showed-up to shoot-down the Luftwaffe when the Allied Bombers began to enjoy a free-hand over German skies... regardless of FLAK which was (statistically) a non-factor in the war (see Berlin).

 

[Ninja2]

... Most of the American casualties in the bombing runs over Germany were caused by the Luftwaffe... not by FLAK.

Below is a quote from Wikipedia on the Second Raid on Schweinfurt. This raid was carried out in 1943, and it was well berfore the introduction of the long range P-51 fighters. So, accompanied by only short range P-47 fighters, the B-17's were making UNESCORTED bomber runs over the targets:

In the final tally, fifty-nine Flying Fortresses were shot down over Germany, one ditched in the English Channel on the return flight, five crashed in England, and twelve more were scrapped due to battle damage or crash landings (more by AA-guns than by fighter aircraft), a total loss of seventy seven B-17s. 122 bombers were damaged to some degree and needed repairs before their next flight.

Notice that it specifically states that more bombers were lost to AA than to enemy fighters. If this quote has any truth to it (and I can't judge that), then I can't understand that you persist in saying that flak was an ineffective counter?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Because you keep harping one specific incident, not the trend of an entire war. You're also speaking of an 'unescorted' bomber run, which you're highly innacurate on. The run was escorted for most of the way... you're being very selective of what you quote... here's what you didn't quote from the same article:

For hundreds of miles inbound to the target area, the B-17 bomber formations were attacked again and again by large numbers of Luftwaffe fighters. A Spitfire escort protected the aircraft over the English Channel. They handed over to fifty P-47 Thunderbolts who accompanied the raid as far as possible. Over Walcheren twenty Bf-109s attacked the escort fighters. German losses were five destroyed and four damaged while no U.S. planes were lost. At Duren, thirty Fw-190s attacked the bombers. Another twenty Fw-190s later joined the attack. During this battle, several B-17s were lost, as well as at least one P-47. German losses were six Fw-190s. At this point, the Thunderbolts had reached the limit of their range and had to return home.

The Schweinfurt run was escorted... it wasn't escorted the entire way... there were three hours without escort for a run that lasted (from start to finish) for the better part of an entire day. The escorts did manage to keep most of the enemy off the formation for the majority of the run to and from the bombing run.

I can assure you, if the run was "unescorted" as you incorrectly stated, the fighter casualties would have greatly outstripped the flak casualties... that's just a simple fact.

Most importantly, you completely neglected (for reasons I can only imagine) the CONCLUSION that was made in the same article you quoted, and what the whole article was about... THE IMPORTANCE OF ESCORTING A RUN! You don't develop long-range escort fighters to protect from FLAK you know... so if you're going to pick-cherries out of an article, do us a favor and let folks read the more important part of the article, like what I quoted above (about how well the run was escorted) and the logical conclusion of the article here:

The USAAF learned the importance of a fighter escort with sufficient range, recognizing the vulnerability of heavy bombers flying in daylight against interceptors. Such very heavy losses could not be sustained, and unescorted daylight bomber raids deep into Germany were suspended until 1944.

The conclusion of the article you quoted from clearly states they need long-range escort fighters... the reason is because of enemy fighters... the USAAF suspended operations beyond escorting fighter range until they had long range escort fighters... the reason? ENEMY FIGHTERS... you don't escort because of FLAK... you escort because of enemy fighters. The article didn't conclude they would suspend bombing because of FLAK, they said they were suspended because of enemy FIGHTERS... a conclusion you neglected to qoute.

Stop cherry-picking to support your cause... I read the same article, and it's clear what is stated... if there's one thing I know it's USAAF history. The Schwienfurt raid proved the whole point about gaining air superiority... it's taught in all Air Force Professional Academys.

Simply put, FLAK casualties will always outstrip fighter casualties if the run is either escorted or there are no enemy fighters... I'm sure most of the bombing runs over Berlin suffered more FLAK casualties then fighter casualties... that's not because FLAK was more deadly then fighters, that's because no fighters got through to the formation. In the case of Schweinfurt, the run was escorted most of the way and back again... casualties would have been much greater by enemy fighters if (as you incorrectly stated) the run was unescorted.

You're looking at a statistic and drawing completely wrong conclusions. The USAAF looked at the same results and decided to suspend operations because of enemy fighters, not because of enemy FLAK... are you saying your conclusions on the run are better then the top military generals of WWII?

 

[Agent327]

Is that just a wild guess? The RAF turned to night bombing in WW II because of the high kill rate on their bombing runs. I reckon what did Nazi-Germany in was the sheer amount of bombers sent in on missions. (I'd agree that fighters 'd be more effective, but they lost air superiority around 1941-'42, taking in account all fronts.)

As you can see, I never questioned the effectiveness of fighters; I merely wondered if the 10% AA success rate (if I'm not mistaken, this is used throughout BTS) was accurate.

I take it, from your usual extremely eloquent posts, it's a fair guess. So let's stop and close the subject.

 

[Wolfshanze]

As you can see, I never questioned the effectiveness of fighters; I merely wondered if the 10% AA success rate (if I'm not mistaken, this is used throughout BTS) was accurate.

I've mentioned it before... if I were to make an AA unit, I'd give it 10% int.

 

[Ninja2]

This is getting really old... I am NOT saying that fighter escorts are useless, nor am I trying to ignore the importance of either long range fighters, air supremacy in general or anything else that's mentioned in that article!! But you seem to repeatedly point out that flak was almost a non-issue for both the RAF and the USAAF, I am just pointing to facts which show that flak IS dangerous, and they DID take their toll on bombers.

Right now, CIV4 in it's released form cannot accurately depict flak units, since bombers are totally turned away if intercepted, which is not very realistic. I am trying to DO something about that, you just keep saying that flak didn't matter, so I pretty much shouldn't bother about that and just go conquer some oil and build a damn airforce. Each to his own, I guess.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Right now, CIV4 in it's released form cannot accurately depict flak units, since bombers are totally turned away if intercepted, which is not very realistic.

Statistically, FLAK didn't do in WWII what would/does happen in Civ4 with FLAK units... turn entire attacks away... and I can assure you, that 40% of the Schweinfurt Raid was not turned away by FLAK, as you would have modeled in Civ4 with your AA unit.

I've been trying desperately to stress the impact of FLAK for those that don't seem to have a firm grasp of its historical impact. I never once said FLAK is worthless or can't shoot anything down... I've been repeatedly stating it won't do what it does in Civ4... FLAK is neither a counter nor something that will save you from destruction via the air... yet, despite my repeated stressing of this point, you went ahead and put in a 40% turn-back unit... which is why I've been trying to stress my point all-along. Seems to me folks either don't get it, or they don't care and just want safety from the ground.

Flak causing a 40% turn-back ratio is simply insane to a high degree. Certainly this is a case of 'Each to his own', I guess.

Now... if it's possible, to make a FLAK unit that only damages but does not turn back, and it has a more reasonable INT rate... say between 10% and 20%, then I'm all for a FLAK unit (see, I don't think they have no place at all)... my problem is and always has been the "turn-back" factor. Bombers that have been completely turned-back from FLAK in WWII is definately no more then 10% (and probably less) of any strike force.

If there's a way to make a FLAK that damages, but does not turn-back, I'd include it in the Wolfshanze Mod myself... with a reasonable INT rate (10%-20%).

P.S.
Ninja... not upset with you, I just talk straight, so if I sound abrubt, it's just the internet! Also, you'll really like my next "surprise" unit in the Wolfshanze Mod... it will be an answer for you that you will enjoy!

 

[Agent327]

Right now, CIV4 in it's released form cannot accurately depict flak units, since bombers are totally turned away if intercepted, which is not very realistic.

I disagree: in my WW II in the Pacific Bristish syle game I built up my airforce enough, so that if a Bomber does get turned back because of AA/fighter interception (and indeed, they take damage too), I just send in the next... and the next... and the next - until I'pounded away their defenses enough to send in the ground troops. Very realistic - IMO.

(About Wolfshanze: don't mind him - he just keeps going on and on... even after he's made his point!)

 

[Ninja2]

For the record, I did not know how the flak unit that I introduced would work out. I didn't realize that would turn away the entire bombing run, before I tested it. I've stated as much when I released it, that the unit probably wasn't balanced. 40% IS too high, especially given that there are promotions which increase it even more. However, if I CAN (and that's a big if) make it work so that it doesn't STOP the bombers, only damage it, I probably won't reduce the intercept percentage. Bombing runs to flak-protected targets would nearly always suffer attrition, I would think.

 

[Agent327]

Only if the Flak hits. (If it does, the Bomber in question is damaged and you get a message stating the mission failed.)

BTW, with air superiority (or luck) you can also damage Flak/defending fighters.

 

[arstal]

Hmm. My idea was to tie Flak into the Bunker building.

I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps say the Bunker causes damage to every air unit that attacks, at a rate of (1d100)-80, results under 0 = 0.

20% of the units would get damaged, but air attacks would get through, and damage would be light.

Would that work well?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hmm. My idea was to tie Flak into the Bunker building.

I don't know if this is possible, but perhaps say the Bunker causes damage to every air unit that attacks, at a rate of (1d100)-80, results under 0 = 0.

20% of the units would get damaged, but air attacks would get through, and damage would be light.

Would that work well?

If that would work, I'd be absolutely fine with that... would it work?

 

[Ninja2]

I don't know much about the workings of buildings. However, what you're suggesting is basically the same as giving a unit a 100% intercept probability, with a maximum damage to enemy units of 20%. The key thing (again) is to allow the enemy bomber to continue on it's mission, regardless of it being intercepted. Or did I misunderstand the suggestion?

 

[arstal]

I figure intercepts that do 0% damage would be the same as a failed intercept. Have it do the damage after the bomb damage was what I was thinking.

Bombing mission, damage check (with 80% probability of no damage- if possible I'd have it do a 1d10, then do damage if a 10), then dish out damage to the aircraft.

This would also help your own fighters in interception (flak worked best as a compliment to your own air force I think) as a fresh aircraft would beat a damaged one usually.

Is that possible?

 

[Wolfshanze]

I understand the concept, which I think is sound... I don't understand how to implement in Civ4... would need help with this.

I actually think this would be a better option then a FLAK unit if it could be made in the way described... AAA shouldn't be a unit that goes running around out in the woods and countryside... they should be assigned to cities for static city defense against the air, and they shouldn't be something that needs to be eliminated by an attacking army to capture the city... all things that a building city improvement that offered AAA would be/do.

Question is... how do we do it, and could it be done?

 

[Ninja2]

I'm beginning to like this building idea. For once, Wolfshanze, I agree with you , that AA shouldn't litter the countryside, but be restricted to cities. I am really busy these days with RL, but I hope to have some time during the week to look into this.

Warning: If I drop off the face of the earth all of a sudden, that will be because I am becoming father of twins very soon... I have a 2-year old daughter already, so I'll be busy!!!