Airpower?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Thats true, Geomodder, but I think he might be referring to targets that are within range of the fighters.
What I would like to see is a situation where-if the ranges of an escorting and intercepting fighter group overlap-that they will slug it out until one side is killed or surrenders. Any surviving interceptors then get to try and take out the bomber being escorted (yeah, DOGFIGHTS!!)
That reminds me, can Solver confirm if aircraft can retreat/abort missions if they are sufficiently damaged? I always disliked the rather absolute nature of air combat in Civ3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[gunnergoz]

Nevermind...answered elsewheres...move along, nothing to see here...

[BigFree]

I never have liked the air missions. I realized it streamlined gameplay but it prevented me from improvising.

[James]

Thank you Solver.

[TheDarkside]

Awesome I'm REALLY happy that air units are mission-based. It's the only way to do it really. Moving the air units tile by tile was tedious and uninspiring. Then there was the fact you can block ground units by sitting a bomber on top of a tile at the end of a turn!

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Thats true, Geomodder, but I think he might be referring to targets that are within range of the fighters.
What I would like to see is a situation where-if the ranges of an escorting and intercepting fighter group overlap-that they will slug it out until one side is killed or surrenders. Any surviving interceptors then get to try and take out the bomber being escorted (yeah, DOGFIGHTS!!)
That reminds me, can Solver confirm if aircraft can retreat/abort missions if they are sufficiently damaged? I always disliked the rather absolute nature of air combat in Civ3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Dogfights.

Holy crap that would be AWESOME.

Good post.

[Sabre2th]

I, too, would like escorted bombing runs.

[Sarxis]

I didn't so much hate the air missions approach, but it was lacking any depth in Civ3. The ranges for the aircraft were far too short, and it seemed more like a 50/50 roll was made for the missions to either succeed or fail (roughly speaking).

At least in SMAC the air units were able to do some serious damage and overflight cover. And there was a ground unit counter for them as well.

[Tennyson]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Thats true, Geomodder, but I think he might be referring to targets that are within range of the fighters.
What I would like to see is a situation where-if the ranges of an escorting and intercepting fighter group overlap-that they will slug it out until one side is killed or surrenders. Any surviving interceptors then get to try and take out the bomber being escorted (yeah, DOGFIGHTS!!)
That reminds me, can Solver confirm if aircraft can retreat/abort missions if they are sufficiently damaged? I always disliked the rather absolute nature of air combat in Civ3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I could get the same effect as fighter escorts, if the fighter was in range, by using the fighter to do recon or bombing runs over the bombing target. The enemy fighters, if any, would then try to shoot down my fighters. They would be used up when I sent my bombers in afterwards.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Tennyson
I could get the same effect as fighter escorts, if the fighter was in range, by using the fighter to do recon or bombing runs over the bombing target. The enemy fighters, if any, would then try to shoot down my fighters. They would be used up when I sent my bombers in afterwards.

That's not very good either for a defender or an attacker. As a defender, I would like to be able to set my fighters to only attack bombers. Thus, as an attacker, the tactic you suggest would not work and the bombers were vulnerable. However, if there is an escort function (could be stack movement for air units), then the fighters escorting the bombers would meet the defending fights and have to be defeated before the bombers themselves were attacked. Perhaps to be more realistic, the escorting fighters would only have a chance of preventing the attack, with a chance that the defending fighters would slip through.

[Tennyson]

Originally posted by sophist
That's not very good either for a defender or an attacker. As a defender, I would like to be able to set my fighters to only attack bombers.

But that was not an option for you. The air superiority mission does not discriminate.

Thus, as an attacker, the tactic you suggest would not work and the bombers were vulnerable.

Except it does work, as it simulates a single attack by multiple forces in the same turn (just as you only attack a city with one tank at a time).

However, if there is an escort function (could be stack movement for air units), then the fighters escorting the bombers would meet the defending fights and have to be defeated before the bombers themselves were attacked.

This is the practical effect of the technique I already described.

Perhaps to be more realistic, the escorting fighters would only have a chance of preventing the attack, with a chance that the defending fighters would slip through.

If there are more defending fighters than attacking fighters, then the bombers are still vulnerable.

Under current warfare, if your fighters are in range, knocking out the opponent's air power BEFORE sending in vulnerable (i.e. not Stealth) bombers is the preferred method.

[Darsnan]

OK, one more question about this approach: how are aircraft carriers handled in these situations? Do the a/c board the carrier and then function the same as if they were based in cities/ airbases, or is it different here because the carrier can move?


D

[GeoModder]

IIRC in Civ III, air missions could be started from an air carrier the same way as from a city. Haven't seen information how it works (precisely) in CIVIV.

[Shogun Gunner]

correctly recalled. Yes, I'm also interested in any additional airpower or seapower information....

or, I'll just wait until next week. :sigh:

[sophist]

Originally posted by Tennyson
But that was not an option for you. The air superiority mission does not discriminate.

No, it doesn't. I would like to be able to explicitly achieve this by giving the right orders. I don't want to have to pretend an escort mission by sending in a recon flight, and I don't want (as a defender) to always intercept recon flights.