Ideas For Air Warfare



  • I belive triplea should really need functional air warfare which may be took place in any territory not only Factory territories. Just I want to detect my wish list before pulling any request.

    1. What are the optimal air attack/air defense powers for fighters/bombers

    2. Would they need additional technologies?

    3. Would we need more fighter models such as

    -close air support (low range-supports land units),

    -light fighter (normal range-protect fighters/fights with enemy fighters),

    -NAV (attacks enemy ships only),

    -Bomber (High range-strategic bomber),

    -Tactical Bomber (High range, supports land units/attack ships/strategic bomber but thye perform worse in all of these categories.)

    1. Should AA be destroyable with strategic bombings?

    2. Ay more ideas?


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Schulz I think a lot of this is very valid and relevant for games with a high degree of detail. Much of it can already be acheived by playing around with existing unit designs.


  • Donators

    @Schulz Much of what you are suggesting would require an alternate combat model. In the A&A model, you target the enemy force as a whole, possibly with exclusions as to what you could hit.

    In other games, you target specific units or specific types of units. For example, in Columbia Games's Victory series, you target land units, sea surface units, air units or submarines. This kind of combat model would require some changes in the TripleA engine, including the AI, but not huge changes.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @RogerCooper The triple A engine is already capable of separating air combat out.


  • Donators

    @Hepps TripleA allows you to separate the air combat out, but not much else. For example, WW2 Heavy Bombers were ineffective against warships, but effective against land units and transports. That level of detail is unsupportable in TripleA.

    There is no way of having land units that can't fire against air units (in limited combat rounds). I tried a number of workarounds for D-day and nothing really works.

    Some sort of grouping system would not be hard to implement. Each unit would have a "casualtyType" property and a number of special attack properties with an options "combatStrength", "stance" (attack/defense/both) and "targetType". The AI would normally target the group against which is has the highest strength.


  • Moderators

    @RogerCooper said in Ideas For Air Warfare:

    @Hepps TripleA allows you to separate the air combat out, but not much else. For example, WW2 Heavy Bombers were ineffective against warships, but effective against land units and transports. That level of detail is unsupportable in TripleA.

    There is no way of having land units that can't fire against air units (in limited combat rounds). I tried a number of workarounds for D-day and nothing really works.

    I'm happy to let you know that (thanks to @redrum) you can now implement this D-Day rule.
    Now TripleA supports this feature (previously hardcoded for submarines only), via the options "canNotTarget" and "canNotBeTargetedBy".
    More information at (and pos2):
    https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/328/unit-option-can-submerge-hide-for-land-units-partisan-guerrilla-spy-diplomat-munition

    Some sort of grouping system would not be hard to implement. Each unit would have a "casualtyType" property and a number of special attack properties with an options "combatStrength", "stance" (attack/defense/both) and "targetType". The AI would normally target the group against which is has the highest strength.

    I like this idea. Though you can already do something very close to that with support. For example, you can have a "pikemen" unit an a "gendarmes" unit, the gendarmes giving +1 strength to 1 enemy "pikemen" unit.


  • Moderators

    @RogerCooper said in Ideas For Air Warfare:

    For example, WW2 Heavy Bombers were ineffective against warships, but effective against land units and transports.

    They were not ineffective. High level bombing was scarcely effective against warships at sea (until you get to have guided bombs; see the sinking of the Italian battleship "Roma") but seriously effective against immobile warships, like warships in ports (see the sinking of the U.S.American battleship "Arizona" or the German battleship "Tirpitz"). On the other hand, any level bombers, including heavy bombers, can be used for low level bombing, that is very effective against highly vulnerable targets, like auxiliary carriers or transport ships (see the sinking of Japanese transport ships during the Guadalcanal campaign).

    It is also to be said that before the war many considered that high level bombing with huge masses of heavy bombers would have proved lethal, to the extent of making surface warships obsolete (the Italian royal air force highly believed in that), but the war disproved these theories (at least until the Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X).

    However, both the Italians and the U.S.Americans (also against the Italians in 1942) indeed employed huge masses of heavy bombers against surface warships, to very little effect, as we know now, but, back them, the reports were very faulty and gave the impression that such attacks were achieving much more than they did.

    So, a game in which heavy bombers cannot attack warships in the open may be realistic as a matter of what you can do, as those attacks achieved almost nothing, but it would be certainly not realistic at all as a matter of what it was done (as such attacks were made on many occasions, and many believed them to be actually effective).



  • I am pretty sure the current properties about air warfare are complicated and insufficient. After rethinking some ideas finally came up:

    1. Need more type of air units and their roles shold be definitely separated like as I said

    -Fighter: Dogfighting and protecting air units only
    -CAS: Supporting ground units and sinking enemy ships
    -NAV: Sinking enemy ships only but performing better than CAS
    -Bomber: Strategic bomber only
    -TAC: Do whatever CAS,NAV,Bomber but its jack of all trades master of none.

    Not separating their roles would make even one single air unit too good and also too boring. For more variety of strategies it is really must I can't see any other way.

    1. Dependence of performance on range

    Another really a must thing without it small/medium maps would be really unplayable.

    How possible to add these kind of new properties on the next version?


  • Donators

    @Cernel I am glad to see the canNotTarget properties are now implemented. I will revisit the D-Day scenario.


  • Donators

    @Cernel said in Ideas For Air Warfare:

    @RogerCooper said in Ideas For Air Warfare:

    So, a game in which heavy bombers cannot attack warships in the open may be realistic as a matter of what you can do, as those attacks achieved almost nothing, but it would be certainly not realistic at all as a matter of what it was done (as such attacks were made on many occasions, and many believed them to be actually effective).

    This is interesting conceptual issue, does realism mean what actually happened or what the participants thought would happen? I would probably give Heavy Bombers an attack of 1/6 against surface warships to reflect lucky hits or catching ships in port.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @RogerCooper You could simply give Hvy Bombers a negative terrain effect over water.


Log in to reply