 |
|
Office_Fox
|
|
Ireland
Jun 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
From reading this forum for a long time (not exactly a lurker, but I couldn`t sign up cause all I have is a hotmail address) I have seen that everyone is upset about how aircraft cant move as far as even engineers can across railroads.
You cant give them infinite movement because it would unbalance the game too much.
What you could do is give them a range of say 8 tiles/hexes/whatevers and if they land at an airfield, they can move again to the next one and the next one. If they attack they can only use thier 8 movement points to return to the desired airport.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kestrel
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jul 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
It has probably been said before but it would also be nice if Aircraft could take out certain inanimate features, e.g. Colonies, Mines, Sections of Railroad, Bridges, Buildings within Cities etc.
Perhaps a player could give the bombers an option to target certain city improvements and they then have a % chance of hitting / destroying those improvements based on several criteria.
This would simulate another way that aircraft have been used in conflicts in the past 50 years rather than just taking out troops / units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
I'm just wondering if it is a good idea to extend fighter's zone of control over one tile.
I don't like seeing bombers fighting behind the front line with bypassing a stack of fighters. ARG.
quote:
However i think this should be restricted to Aircrafts only and not Missiles. Because that would make nuclear missiles to long ranged.
|
What is wrong with that? Just give everyone cheaper SDI. Or maybe just M.A.D.
Or maybe give the civ of the world a makeshift nuclear anti-nuke missile like the Russians had around moscow as soon as a mahanten project is complete.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shoeless
|
|
The problem is not that airplanes don't have enough movement, it is that railroads give land units too much movement. If any unit can go to any tile on the map, where is the strategy?
Shoeless
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jadlakha
|
|
Stealth bombers can go from nevada to the middle east and back without refueling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FireDragon
Yes, and while theyre at it they should make aircraft be able to fly over things!!! |
Yes, this is a good idea, one I have seen used to good effect in Panzer General (again!) which I consider to be an influential TBS. It is a better idea for you to be able to fly over a square and bomb rather than outside. This also brings up some interesting concepts for air defence, especially if guns are stationed within a city, or a fighter unit is present for. If fighters are already present, perhaps this will bring up the idea of escorting bomber units 'just in case'. A bit like working in 2 different layers; if a fighter is already there, you have trouble if you have a lone bomber unit.
Yeah, I quite like the concept of refuelling aircraft. These things move faster than a train so should quite conceivably be able to cross large empires in a turn if it can land, refuel and move on again (what would happen in real life). And yes, you should launch missiles against a target, and carry them on aircraft or land units (perhaps even from the missile carrier, like some kind of mobile missile launcher) which will be weak on defense and would have to be escorted into enemy territory to be launched. Also these could be 'captured', so it would have to be carefully used. Bog standard cruise missiles could be carried in the same way!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chowlett
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
I quite like this idea, but there should be a limit on how many times a plane should be able to refuel - otherwise we have infintie movement again. And that's precluded by the theory of relativity, as it would require infinite speed.
I would suggest putting a limit on, say, 3 refuels per turn.
But yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, please make planes able to fly over units! Possibly not AA guns, or if they do, they have a chance to get shot at.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nadexander
I really hope they implement a better airdefense system like the automatic fighter defense they had in SMAC. Plus id like it if they made the bombers work more realistically. In real life, bombers cant destroy a unit in the feild like they do in civ. They actually work like artillary by softening up a target (except they work better, have better range, and are more versatile). Id also like to see bombers have the capability of attacking city infrastructure (especially targetting stuff like city walls, palaces, and factories) and destroying bridges and roads. Definately some kind of AA guns need to be introduced.
|
I agree completely, specifically with regards to bombers completely destroying whole units (after a month of the air war in the Gulf War, no unit was completely destroyed, it took 100 hours of ground war to physically defeat units) I like the idea of bombers becoming flying artillery, though I think they should be more powerful then just destroying one improvement, maybe 2, or give buildings hit points as well
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Your.Master
|
|
Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada
Apr 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
On MUST-HAVE-AIRPORT-IN-CITY
Of course. That would also encourage airport production
On Infinite movement
Infinite movement -IS- more realistic than limits. You get a year. People can go around the world in a day (if you work the time zones well). Plus, it's NOT as game-unbalancing as you seem to think. Unless you're omnipresent (i.e. you've already won) you still have limited ranges.
On missiles:
HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THE MISSILE GRAPHICS ARE -JUST- GRAPHICS? They're carried on small planes not shown. That's how they're transported in civ. The planes are not of military value beyond their cargo, so they disappear with the missile. Still unrealistic, but less so than you say.
On plane defense:
Great idea. I've always wanted it that way...and then bombers could have a fighter-like range!
Airbase-Fortress: The problem is upgrades. We can build castles today, but it's not cost-effective to build airbases from castles. I say keep them separate. It works better, game-wise, IMO, anyway.
On bombers hitting city improvements: good idea, like a spy. But default to attack so I don't have to go through an options screen every time. A button switches the screen on (say b for tactical bombing).
On aircraft destroying stationary: Also a good idea. Give them the pillage ability, basically, it is both more fun and more realistic.
ALSO:
Uber made a good point. Shouldn't there be some kind of international reaction to the atrocity of picking off civilians, especially engineers in their own territory (go ahead and kill the ones making a fortress outside your capital while you're at war), ESPECIALLY engineers currently cleaning up pollution?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I made a suggestion similar to this a while back... to recap it:
All planes will have Fuel and Attacks(or Actions), if a plane runs out of fuel then it crashes just like before. Each time a plane attacks/bombs/"pillages"/ect. it uses one attack(or action). However, all cities and airfields and aircraft carriers that the player or an ally owns create an "air-range", no fuel is used (and all used fuel is regained) while inside this air-range (cities with airports would have a much better range than other cities).
AA units project a "zone-of-control" vs. air-units, and AA planes (i.e., fighters) that have at-least one attack left can be given the order to intercept.... it will attack any enemy plane within it's "air-range", and can attack as many times (vs. diffrent units, not vs. the same one) as it had attacks remaining.
Finally, yes, air-units can pass over land units w/o attacking them (a dialog box will appear asking if you want to "engage", "fly-by" or "cancel").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
Here is a problem though....
The infinity scout problem. One fighter flies all over the place and refuel endless times. One air unit than can scout huge amounts of land that is within a certain distance from a airbase/city.
AA units should be able attack air units flying over it but not ZOC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MORON
Here is a problem though....
The infinity scout problem. One fighter flies all over the place and refuel endless times. One air unit than can scout huge amounts of land that is within a certain distance from a airbase/city.
AA units should be able attack air units flying over it but not ZOC. |
Yes, a unit with endless refuelling can patrol too much terrain (I don't think scouting new terrain is a problem, because usually when planes are available the world is largely know, around your cities/airbase at least.
I'm not sure if balancing reason push to have a cap over max railroad movement, more than raising planes movement.
As others posters said, very long range bombing aren't usual. I suggest to keep the current movement rules for planes, but give them a "ferry" mode for long range transfer.
You can select a "Goto" like movement (Ferry), as long as you end your movement inside an airbase/city (no mid-fly combat) and there is a (virtual) fly route that connect starting and ending points by a chain of cities/airbases each not far than your plane fly range. I'm note sure if city must have an airport facilities (they come too late in Civ 2, but this can be balanced).
This solve:
- plane fast transfer in well developed empire
- plane can not endlessy patrol around city, because they are still limited by normal range
- plane can't scramble from the east border of your empire and attack same turn incoming enemy at west border, because they use ferry to transfer, then can attack next turn (think of if as sort of artillery lose of attack turn after movement).
- Planes can fly over enemy troops during ferries, no ZOC exerted. May be dedicated AA unit (flak) can automatically attack if in alert mode, same for scrambling of enemy fighter (see SMAC rules for range of scramble) as interceptor. Flak can't be damaged from the attacked unit in ferry flight, while dogfighting follow common rules. After a dogfight, attacked unit (if survived) must stop ferry movement, going back to common movement rules.
Anyone see a weak point in my proposed little changes?
On a side note, Go to command works pretty well in SMAC, but must be enhanced the planes parts, because it follow the terrain best path, as road, instead of straight movement 
Scramble rules of SMAC must be tweacked, to avoid very damaged planes to automatically scramble for sure death.
Last edited by Adm.Naismith on 14-06-2001 at 20:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
A lot of good thoughts in this thread.
Being able to fly over friendly units (and perhaps cities too) is definitely appropriate; I would suggest that if you fly over an enemy unit or city with AAA capability, they get to take a shot at you (not to the death, but an attrition shot like artillery). I don't know how neutral units/cities should be treated; in SP it could trigger some interaction with the AI, but I don't know how to handle it w/r a human in MP.
Directed attacks against facilities in cities are cool too; I would think that you would fly directly over the city (risking AAA attack as above) and then execute something like a SMAC probe action where there would be a possibility of destroying facilities with various odds depending on whether you wanted to specify the facility and/or what type of facility it was (some types of facililities are probably easier targets than others).
I like the idea of accidents; it could apply to most kinds of units, not just planes. They don't have to be completely random either, they could be related to time away from bases or time since last upgrade (I'd hate to add more MM, but there could be a "maintenance" thing too).
I (think) I like the refueling idea, although it might develop into something unexpected. As a means of avoiding the infinite patrol problem, I would suggest that a plane could only spend 1 turn's worth of its normal movement allowance within range of any of its refueling stops; in other words, you could deviate a bit and you could patrol some on your way across your territory (this might still be still be subject to abuse).
Just to end on a dubius idea, I thought of having "flyways", like RRs, established somehow , kind of like air traffic corridors between cities with airports; if you want an extended flight (once you drag the cursor beyond the normal range), it locks on to the flyway network and lets you drag your normal range around that. This way, you could only "go long" if you let the computer plot the part of the route which used the flyways.
Even with the extra hassles and MM, I think missles should be transported by some form of explicit missile transport; in other words, once they take off under their own power, the fuse is lit and they will go off somewhere.  This would take more time, be somewhat vulnerable to accident or attack, be subject to more espionage and not be subject to abuse as long range spy planes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shoeless
The problem is not that airplanes don't have enough movement, it is that railroads give land units too much movement. If any unit can go to any tile on the map, where is the strategy? |
Office_Fox have a potentially good idea, but it should be downtuned, like Chowlett suggests. Anyway, Shoeless makes a good and valid point, nevertheless. Only the ICBM-units should be allowed to "fight" anywhere on the map, by point-and-click.
quote:
Originally posted by Chowlett
I quite like this idea, but there should be a limit on how many times a plane should be able to refuel - otherwise we have infintie movement again. And that's precluded by the theory of relativity, as it would require infinite speed.
I would suggest putting a limit on, say, 3 refuels per turn. |
 That would be just about right.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2001 19:46
This way you have a reason to set up air bases and have planes in then to defend, to protect your teritory. Though I am not sure if they should also defend against ships. Maybe the tech level can decide what they can defend against. 
As a extra note though I think you should not have fortresses and airbases, but only one type of baes that evolves of time and technology.
|
|