Fighter vs. SAM
Now you might think this topic is about a fighter attacking a city that has a SAM in it... but it's not
What do you use for Air defense against the AI? I used to always build SAM's in my cities... but lately I have gotten in the habit of defending my cities with fighters instead. I've found that in some cases they can defend much higher than a defensive unit behind a SAM. For those of you who didn't know, if a bomber (any other air units?) attacks a city and your fighter defends, your fighter recieves something like a 1600% defense bonus. Granted, in democracies thsi won't work too well, but in something like communism/fundy, it could work well. What do you guys think?
Note: Fighters cost 80 shields, SAM's are 100 shields.
You make sure your opponent never gets flightReally, I would use SAM considering the disadvantages of Democracy. But in the other gov'ts I would use a fighter because it can spot other land units and it can fly out a bit and scout.
------------------
Save the whales, collect the whole set!!
If Al Gore invented the Internet, then I invented the spell check- Dan Quayle
If someone doesn't agree with you, you haven't explained yourself well enough-Luther Ely Smith
I never build SAM. The reasons are legion.
Fighters can scout.
Fighter can deftly sneak your other units through any zone of control.
Fighters can successfully attack spies, subs, transports, freights, engineers, etc., and attack multiple times per turn across any terrain.
Fighters can hunt down bombers hanging outside the cities, including any bomber that successfully whomped one of your units elsewhere.
The scrambling fighter gets quadruple strength, giving it an effective strength of 4 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 64, plenty strong enough to defend against enemy bombers' 12 x 2 x 2 = 48, especially after it wins a fight and goes veteran, which the bombers rarely are.
Granted, the SAM is a "permanent" city improvement while the fighter has to be replaced if it loses a fight. But the fact is, even with a SAM, most units are MORE likely to lose to a bomber than a fighter is. Even mech infantry fortified in a city with a SAM defends at only 6 x 3 x 1.5 x 2 = 54, compared to the fighter's 64. Even veteran alpine troops are slightly weaker than the novice bomber. The fighter may get destroyed occasionally, but much less often than whatever else the SAM is supposed to protect.
Fighters can move forward along with the border instead of being stuck in one city.
You get flight before rocketry.
Fighters are cheaper (they do require shield maintenance, but SAM requires 2 gold).
The only comparative disadvantages of fighters that occur to me are that your SAM never accidentally runs out of fuel, and possibly (I don't remember 'cause I don't use 'em) the SAM is more useful against missiles. But if you have to defend your cities against missiles, your problems go way beyond this question.
By the way, fighters don't cause unhappiness under democracy, if that's the disadvantage you're referring to.
Oh no I knew they didn't cause unhappiness, only bombers and Nukes do that. I was just referring to the shield support. Shield support for smaller cities can kill them, in addition to the reg units defending the city.
fighters all the way. esp. against the ai. Now sams would actually be of use in a multiplayer game. Especially if you are supporting 1 or 2 cities on another continent. Then barracks/airport/city/walls/coastal fortress/and sam are almost absolutely necessary if you have unfriendlies around. But the ai does not know how to conduct a sufficient air attack to worry about it. Only if you cheat and give them 100 bombers do they post a threat.
You don't have to support the fighter from the city it is in. You can support it from any city, then fly it where it is needed. It still won't cause unhappiness, since it must end its turn in a friendly city. This also goes for troops in cities (or forts within three squares of a friendly city) at the frontier.
SAMs seem a waste of time, mostly.
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited December 28, 2000).]
Xin Yu - so ships don't benefit from terrain bonuses? I've always meant to check that out. I have noticed that you can fortify them from the city screen...
AEGIS cruiser is the best defender in coastal cities, not only against bombers, but also against cruise missiles. However if you consider terrain factor then maybe change the city square to hills and use fighter or SAM is better.
debeest,
Using fighters to sneak through zones of control? That's sheer brilliance! I'll have to try that.
Blaupanzer,
I was under the impression that any military not in it's home city or in a fortress within it's home city's city radius caused unhappiness (in democracies). Is it true that say a Paris musketeer in Lyons won't cause any unhappiness in Paris under a democracy? That would certainly change how I home my units.
Ed -
You're units can be in any friendly city or in a fortress within three squares of any friendly city. It doesn't have to be in it's home city.
"Is it true that say a Paris musketeer in Lyons won't cause any unhappiness in Paris under a democracy?"
That's quite true.
Blaupanzer & SandMonkey,
A thousand thanks. I guess I made up that "rule" in my head. This will lead to a lot less rehoming of defenders.
I'm puzzled. My scrambled fighters often lose to incoming bombers. No doubt that is often because they are damaged, having been employed picking off nearby AI units. But IIRC I've regularly lost undamaged vet fighters. I can't square that with the quadruple strength notion.
How does terrain affect matters (if at all)? Does the bomber get the terrain bonus of the square it stands upon and the scrambled fighter the bonus of the city square?
I have been used to building SAMs in all non coastal border cities but will gladly go over to a defence based on scrambling fighters if I can get my head around this quad defence bonus notion.
Nice thread, SandMonkey - one among quite a few latterly. Seemingly Christmas may not be a time of too much peace and goodwill in the halls of the Apolytoner!
Bombers do get terrain and the fortress bonuses. Not sure about scrambling Fighters or AEGIS.
debeest: I think that when a Fighter scambles, its defense value is quadrupled, not its attack value. IIRC, Fighters have D=3 so their strength (good concept, btw) is 3 x 2 x 2 x 4 = 48 - same as the bomber.
Another drawback of using Fighters is that you need to have an expensive Airport in the city or else the next Bomber wave will crush them before they repair.
I generally use vet Mech Inf. If there's any terrain advantage, they can often win against even a vet bomber. Other advantages:
a) You probably already have a barracks for repair.
b) Faster and easier to reinforce from almost anywhere via rail.
c) Fighters are too good to waste on defense.
d) MI perform triple duty of also being good defenders against ground and sea.
In Fundamentalism, those otherwise useless Fanatics make great Bomber fodder. Leave the Fighters outside the city and let each 120 shield Bomber kill a 20 shield Fanatic, which you then take out with a Fighter. It also gives you something to build in your low shield cities.
Now this is a question I've had for some time, but thought I would now because the defense strength of Fighters has been brought up. I figured it was just one of those inconsistent bugs.
I have seen cases when a Fighter is fortified within a city, but does not defend when that city is attacked by a bomber. I used to build SAMs too, but not anymore, as I'd rather have Fighters for some of the reasons listed above. Has anybody seen this happen. I think it this situation is different in MGE, too. I remember that if I actually fortified a Fighter, that fighter never scrambled to defend.
The general rule for defending any position is that the defender with the greatest defensive rating/hit points would defend that position. Is this true for Fighters as well? Do they need to be the strongest unit defending a city in order to scramble and defend against a Bomber attack? Any ideas?
my thoughts would be that fortfied fighters don't scramble to defens, they should she sentry duty, i am not sure if this works or makes a difference though
I've go two questions:
How do you get the formula for the effective defense strength? Its the base defense of three, but why do you multiply? I always thought attack/defense bonuses are caluclated basing on the standart value and then added? (i.e. riflemen get two additional defense points if veteran)
I'm not sure at all, but could it be that SDI has an effect on the defense strength of ground units in a city against air units? I've noticed that in a game where my vet MechInf supported by SAMs lost against stealth bombers VERY often. I built a SDI defence in that city and they won much more often.
Sieve: Eeeeps! You're right, fighters' defense number is 3, giving them only the same defensive strength as the bomber's offensive strength. No wonder I do so poorly at this game.... Okay, I have to revise my position somewhat, but fighters still put up a better fight against bombers than almost any other unit, even with SAM.
EST: That explains why your fighters can easily lose to bombers. Fair fight! And yes, as far as I can tell, any unit gets the defensive bonus of whatever terrain it's on, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
Bohlen: Yes, the fighter has to be the strongest defensive unit in order to be the unit that defends. Normally, if it's scrambling, it WILL be. However, there are flaws in the system. Strong ships will often preferentially defend, even though they're going to get Pearl Harbored. Really irritating when some bomber takes out my helpless fortified cruiser while the fighter sits out the action.
Bohlen, I never fortify my fighters, because I always want them to come up in the move cycle and go looking for meat.So I've never noticed them failing to scramble. But it does make sense. Too bad you can't get the added defensive strength, though.
Chainsaw: SDI is not SUPPOSED to affect defense against anything but nukes. Heaven forbid there should be an error in the documentation....
The calculation of battle strength is a simpler thing than most people imagine. Basically, it's just A (or D) x HP x FP. Then multiply by 1.5 for veteran. Multiply by 2 for fortress. Multiply by 1.5 for fortification, except behind city walls where you multiply by 3 INSTEAD. Multiply by 2 for coastal fortress (although I suspect it may really be 3, based on my experience) or for SAM. On defense, multiply by any terrain bonuses. This cumulative multiplication gives a veteran unit fortified in a fortress on a rivered forest a relative strength of 1.5 x 2 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 6.75. Fractions do count, as far as I can tell. This formula is not strictly accurate, but it's so EFFECTIVELY accurate that you will never be able to tell the difference no matter how much you play.
quote:
Originally posted by debeest on 01-10-2001 03:07 AM
Chainsaw: SDI is not SUPPOSED to affect defense against anything but nukes. Heaven forbid there should be an error in the documentation....
Maybe I'm imagining this, but I could swear that SDI combined with SAM will give a x5 defense multiplier against cruise missiles and cruise missiles only (I found this out because I tend to use the cruise missiles I capture from bribing AI cities, on _other_ AI cities).
Anyway, I'm certain the SDI has no effect on bombers or fighters. I suppose the designers felt that a missile is a missile, be it cruise or nuke, and the SDI should work against both?
STYOM
I got the following message in my last game:
Apparently fighters are good for more than scrambling and scouting...
Anyone know what this means? Did the ai (Carthaginians) try to airlift units into Leptis Parva? I can't remember doing anything actively to prevent this.
(BTW, ALL the Carthaginian cities were on the same continent...)
[This message has been edited by Lars-E (edited January 15, 2001).]
Lars-E -
No, the AI was attempting to airlift a unit (when you have an airport in two cities, you can airlift units between them). I have seen this message as well, pretty sweet if you ask me
Interesting Sandmonkey. I knew about airlifts, but not that fighters could prevent this..
(BTW, I edited my post before I read yours..)
Instead of building an expensive airport in a city to repair aircraft, use an engineer to build an airport; it works the same.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks