27-02-2002 06:39									#1
	Air unit improvment Get a bigger avatar today!

Air units:
After playing for a bit, I have to say that I am coming to appreciate the air game more than I did. Having said that, there are a few changes that I would like to see.

Bombardment:
I don’t wish to start up the whole argument about planes taking down ships. I would, however, like the change the way air bombardment happens. First, there is always a target. It is true that it wasn’t until very recently that bombs hit their targets more often than not, but the bombardiers were always trying for something specific. What I would propose is that every time my air unit tries to bombard a city, or even the ground, a list of all possible targets should pop up. The percentage to hit should go up with precision guidance. Also, I should never, when attacking a city with a plane, hit nothing. Of course, this may be to simulate some condition such as “well, I hit it, but not enough to actually cause damage. Since Civ. Buildings are either standing or not, there doesn’t seem to be much ground for partial damage.

Air superiority:
I want to be able to fly my fighters over enemy cities to engage other fighters in combat. Let me make an actual action that is geared for this. I want to try and hit the other plane, and not just let them come after me.

SAM:
SAMs should cover the entire city radius. This would make it a lot harder to cut a city off from trade.

Helicopters:
As they stand now, these units are fairly pointless. I would like to see a flag in the editor that says something like “air unit can rebase on any land squares.” This would allow me to load units onto a ‘copter, rebase them up to 8 squares away, and unload the troops for a deep strike mission. This would also allow me to build a unit like the harrier that could strike deep in enemy territory and land there. Such units could also be loaded onto a “modern transport” or some such. This transport would be faster than the “current” transport, and capable of carrying deep-deployment (helicopters and harriers) units. Air units rebased on non-city or carrier squares would be subject to HP penalties similar to Civ 2.

	01-03-2002 01:21									#2
	Put an end to popups!

This is just a bump to give people another chance to read/comment/ignor...

I thought that there were some decent ideas here, but haven't heard anything about them...

	01-03-2002 01:33									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

SAMs and Fighters should engage any enemy aircraft that enter the city radius (well, depending on the intercept %).

I would like to see fighters be able to escort bombers.

I disagree with the specific targeting, only because that's a lot of extra pointing and clicking. If you could set up a default list... maybe.

-Arrian

p.s. I think it's unlikely any of these changes will (can?) be made, but one can always hope.

	01-03-2002 01:58									#4
	Re: Air unit improvment Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Andrew Cory Bombardment: I don’t wish to start up the whole argument about planes taking down ships. I would, however, like the change the way air bombardment happens. First, there is always a target. It is true that it wasn’t until very recently that bombs hit their targets more often than not, but the bombardiers were always trying for something specific. What I would propose is that every time my air unit tries to bombard a city, or even the ground, a list of all possible targets should pop up. The percentage to hit should go up with precision guidance. Also, I should never, when attacking a city with a plane, hit nothing. Of course, this may be to simulate some condition such as “well, I hit it, but not enough to actually cause damage. Since Civ. Buildings are either standing or not, there doesn’t seem to be much ground for partial damage.

Have you heard about Stealth Bombers? You know they have them in Civ3 right? They can perform precise bombing missions.
For the rest, I agree!

	01-03-2002 02:00									#5
	Tired of ads?

Definitely agree that SAMs should be improved, much in the same way that coastal fortresses should.


Making SAMs able to hit anything in the city radius is a good option, maybe a little powerful though... they should still have an intercept chance otherwise you'll effectively make bombers, etc useless.

	01-03-2002 03:47									#6
	Re: Re: Air unit improvment Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Spectator Have you heard about Stealth Bombers? You know they have them in Civ3 right? They can perform precise bombing missions. For the rest, I agree!

Yes, they can perform a mission called "percision bombing". What this means is that you can tell the bomber to go after "buildings", and if you score a hit, a building is destroyed. What I want to say is "go after the barraks", with the knowlage that _somthing_ will be hit. Percision bombing would serve to radicaly improve the % that what I want hit will be hit...

	01-03-2002 13:50									#7
	Re: Air unit improvment Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Andrew Cory Air units: After playing for a bit, I have to say that I am coming to appreciate the air game more than I did. Having said that, there are a few changes that I would like to see. Bombardment: I don’t wish to start up the whole argument about planes taking down ships. I would, however, like the change the way air bombardment happens. First, there is always a target. It is true that it wasn’t until very recently that bombs hit their targets more often than not, but the bombardiers were always trying for something specific. What I would propose is that every time my air unit tries to bombard a city, or even the ground, a list of all possible targets should pop up. The percentage to hit should go up with precision guidance. Also, I should never, when attacking a city with a plane, hit nothing. Of course, this may be to simulate some condition such as “well, I hit it, but not enough to actually cause damage. Since Civ. Buildings are either standing or not, there doesn’t seem to be much ground for partial damage.

Actually, area bombing was used frequently in WWII. The USAAF made a big deal about "daylight precision bombing," but in reality it was not uncommon for bombs to land more than five miles away from the intended target. Also, usually only the lead bomber actually lined up and sighted the target; the following bombers simply dropped on his lead, hoping to saturate the area with enough explosives to destroy the target.

The RAF, on the other hand, was more into nighttime area bombing of cities. Sure, they were attempting to take out certain key targets, but by and large if they dropped bombs on the city somewhere it was a successful mission.

All bombing missions are subject to some rate of failure, even today. Weather, mechanical problems, pilot error and poor intelligence can all lead to missions being scrubbed, aborted or otherwise failing to put bombs on target.

Lastly, don't forget about the enemy's ability to recover and repair damage. If you don't do enough damage, in many cases the target can be repaired and made functional again in mere hours. It might be the case that even though the target is “hit” it is repaired so quickly that the mission’s desired result (say, the destruction of some barracks) ultimately fails.

quote: Originally posted by Andrew Cory Air superiority: I want to be able to fly my fighters over enemy cities to engage other fighters in combat. Let me make an actual action that is geared for this. I want to try and hit the other plane, and not just let them come after me.

Easier said than done IRL. In WWII, the Germans rarely bit at provoking Allied fighter sweeps into Northern France and simply waited for the bombers to show up instead. In Desert Storm, much of the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to avoid being engaged by OCA. I'd love to see such missions in CivIII, but I think that an Escort mission option would be more useful and, ultimately, successful. Just put the fighters on Escort and they would automatically sortie to intercept any enemy interceptors launched against friendly bombers within their flight range. Intercepting Escort fighters would use their attack rating against the enemy interceptors.

And I'm with you on SAMs and Helicopters; I've never built either and fail to see their utility in the game.

	01-03-2002 14:02									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

While you cannot escort your bombers, you CAN send your fighters in first to recon and bombard to provoke enemy intercepts (50% chance as default). You may lose your fighters as their defense strength is normally only half their attack strength.

I have equalized fighter Attack & Defense Strengths to allow more success with 'offensive' air superiority missions (e.g., 4/4 instead of 4/2) using the Editor.

	01-03-2002 23:54									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Agreed on the helios - their current connection to paratroops is strange. Being able to airlift should be much more limited than it is currently. The U.S. even at the end of the eighties could barely lift several light divisions or one heavy division with its equipment in any kind of reasonable time frame. Heliocopters function now like transport aircraft should function like only with less than the range they should have. Probably should be two levels of air transports too - WWII era C-47's, Ju-52 - with ranges like bombers for foot-capable units (expensive as bombers) and modern circa 1970's reflecting C5's, An-22(?)'s capable of carrying armor and with the unlimited range between airports owned by the player (These should be pretty expensive).

I'd be for staging within the 1 year turn time frame of the game - guess its doable now with editor if I'm understanding correctly by giving air units more than 1 move: plane rebases on one move and then strikes from new base target in range. More realistic would be rebase only if chain of bases is each segment within double air units operational range, getting to final new base.

Escort missions yes.

An editor fix, but curious as to why bombers were not given recon missions in the basic game.

Barchan, a twist on what you said on Luftwaffe and fighter sweeps. If I'm remembering correctly that in early 1944 Big Week was about getting Luftwaffe up in the air and engaging against escorted bombers. They suffered big losses and it contributed to why Luftwaffe presence was weak at Normandy landings, key turning point in decline of Luftwaffe. Appologies in advance if my memory is crap on this.

	02-03-2002 06:16									#10
	Re: Re: Air unit improvment Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Barchan Actually, area bombing was used frequently in WWII. The USAAF made a big deal about "daylight precision bombing," but in reality it was not uncommon for bombs to land more than five miles away from the intended target. Also, usually only the lead bomber actually lined up and sighted the target; the following bombers simply dropped on his lead, hoping to saturate the area with enough explosives to destroy the target. The RAF, on the other hand, was more into nighttime area bombing of cities. Sure, they were attempting to take out certain key targets, but by and large if they dropped bombs on the city somewhere it was a successful mission.

True. What I said was somthing like "they didn't always hit their target, but they were always aiming at somthing". The odds to hit with older fighters would be much lower than with precision bombers...

quote: Originally posted by Barchan All bombing missions are subject to some rate of failure, even today. Weather, mechanical problems, pilot error and poor intelligence can all lead to missions being scrubbed, aborted or otherwise failing to put bombs on target.

True. But I belive that in the recent afganistan campain it took 1.5 bombs/hit. That compares with 10 bombs/hit just a decade ago in Iraq. Yes, there is a rate of faliure, but more and more often that is due to bad intelegence rather than bad aiming...

quote: Originally posted by Barchan Lastly, don't forget about the enemy's ability to recover and repair damage. If you don't do enough damage, in many cases the target can be repaired and made functional again in mere hours. It might be the case that even though the target is “hit” it is repaired so quickly that the mission’s desired result (say, the destruction of some barracks) ultimately fails.

Yes, this is 100% true. I mean, al-quiada's infrustructure seems to consist of tents and camles-- hardly somthing impossible to replace...

quote: Originally posted by Barchan Easier said than done IRL. In WWII, the Germans rarely bit at provoking Allied fighter sweeps into Northern France and simply waited for the bombers to show up instead. In Desert Storm, much of the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to avoid being engaged by OCA. I'd love to see such missions in CivIII, but I think that an Escort mission option would be more useful and, ultimately, successful. Just put the fighters on Escort and they would automatically sortie to intercept any enemy interceptors launched against friendly bombers within their flight range. Intercepting Escort fighters would use their attack rating against the enemy interceptors.

Ok, I'll agree. Well, I don't know that it makes that much of a difference, actualy, but if we can get it, I'll take it...

quote: Originally posted by Barchan And I'm with you on SAMs and Helicopters; I've never built either and fail to see their utility in the game.

So far, I have not heard anyone say they dissagree with me on the helios, so perhaps if we are loud enough it might, just might, be in the next patch...

That is, assuming that it is not hard-coded...

	04-03-2002 14:02									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by candidgamera Barchan, a twist on what you said on Luftwaffe and fighter sweeps. If I'm remembering correctly that in early 1944 Big Week was about getting Luftwaffe up in the air and engaging against escorted bombers. They suffered big losses and it contributed to why Luftwaffe presence was weak at Normandy landings, key turning point in decline of Luftwaffe. Appologies in advance if my memory is crap on this.

A good point, but The Big Week wasn't a fighter sweep; it was a massive bombing operation. Yes, it was heavily escorted and USAAF fighters inflicted heavy losses on Luftwaffe interceptors. But the interceptors were going for the bombers, not the fighters. Had the fighters gone in alone, it's doubtful the Germans would have bothered to take off. Unlike the allies who had nearly limitless resources and could fly all over the countryside bombing and strafing everything in sight, the Luftwaffe had much more limited resources and couldn't sortie as often. So, the thinking went, why hunt tigers when you can slaughter sheep? Of course, when the sheep are guarded by tigers it's tough to make a living, as the Luftwaffe painfully discovered....