How to Protect Formers from Enemy Air?

[Yxklyx]

Last couple of games I've been losing formers to enemy air. What's the best defense? Placing your own fighters on sentry mode seems like a bad idea and keeping a fighter on top of each former takes up too many resources. I supposed I should build some infantry defense units for the formers - which is best SAM or AAA?

[mrdynamic]

I run into this allot also. If I am good at capturing mindworms I place a mindworm on top each former as a defender which seems to prevent enemy attacks quite well. I have tried armored formers, but seems like it is not enough to defend against attacks. If you can build SAM rovers or SAM choppers (choppers are best for getting back into a safe base afterwards) at least you can pick off the planes as they hit a former, I consider that a fair trade since formers are usually cheaper than planes. Otherwise I move my formers into my bases on hold until I can get the enemy under control ... move the war to their land or get a treaty ......

[TresXF]

my strategy:

inside base radius: a squadron of interceptors. they'll repell any scrambles (H-mode).

countryside: infantry with anti aircraft capability and good armor to protect your formers. maybe an airfield with intercepors in the vicinity.

[Yxklyx]

But when fighters intercept isn't the combat resolved attack strength vs attack strength? Seems to me that fighters take lots of damage when intercepting bombers as opposed to hardly taking any damage when just attacking them normally.

[TresXF]

usually i use armored interceptors. bombers ain't no match for them. never had really probs with those.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Regarding resolution of air combats with air units

Fighter vs. bomber in air - Attack strength vs. attack strength

Fighter vs bomber on the ground - attack strength vs. armor

Bomber vs. fighter in the air - not allowed

Bomber vs fighter on the ground - attack strength vs. attack strength (fighter scrambles automaticallly)

As a consequence the only time a fighter has use for armor is if it is caught in a base by land based units else it always attacks and defends via weapon strength. Rule of thumb for me is to NEVER armor air units as they are god awful expensive and have very little extra value for the cost.

Og

[RedFred]

Oh no! Not the dreaded armored interceptors debate! (I never armor aircraft, my logic is that it is too expensive for something that doesn't often come into play)

The best tactic for saving those formers is total air superiority. But if your enemy does get some aircraft launched, armor is often effective especially if you happen to be mining a rocky tile.

Despite this, I seldom use armored formers. I consider formers to be like kleenex - cheap, useful and if need be, disposable. No, Mr. Design Workshop new unit producer, I don't want your fancy super fungicidals!

My suggestion is use all the money that you were going to spend armoring your formers, armoring your interceptors, SAMing your rovers or whatever and instead spend it on a decent attack force to push your enemy back out of range.

[Flubber]

armour on planes also comes into play when attacked by SAM units-- but I still NEVER armour them

as to tactics I agree with Redfred. Playing defense outside a base is usually a losing proposition. SAM units are effective to take out the bombers after they hit, but I find that the best protection is to bomb the crap out of the bases that are attacking you. Pound them until THEY are defending

[TresXF]

armor & jets

i know that you don't HAVE to armor them - but usually i using interceptors as multi-purpose-fighters. air and ground attacks. and since i'm a builder and scientist who don't like much military they are useful to me

[RedFred]

Originally posted by TresXF
armor & jets

i know that you don't HAVE to armor them - but usually i using interceptors as multi-purpose-fighters. air and ground attacks. and since i'm a builder and scientist who don't like much military they are useful to me

Well, I admit in special situations (tech superiority, running FM with drone implications for building non-interceptor air units) that the idea has some merit. But I usually have higher priorities as far as spending the ecs or mins for the armor.

[johndmuller]

Fighter vs. bomber in air - Attack strength vs. attack strength

I hate to disagree with the notable SMAC personage, Ogie Oglethorpe, but having endured several of those dreaded threads that RedFred alluded to earlier, I'm pretty sure that if a fighter attacks a bomber in the air it is the fighter's weapon strength versus the bomber's armor - the weapon versus weapon is only in the case of two fighters (or as was stated, an attacking bomber versus a scrambling fighter, although I'm not exactly sure detail-wise, how that case is treated). Thus, of the two types of aircraft, armor seems to be more useful on the strike a/c than on the SAM a/c.

I used to armor my interceptors all the time - but that was mostly when I was using SMAC v0 and aircraft armor was a lot cheaper. It could be my imagination, but it seems to me that it was a lot harder to lose one of them too; perhaps they also changed something in the combat algorithm along with the costs.

Cost and effectiveness aside, I still armor interceptors sometimes, maybe just with that bright red synthmetal armor so that I can tell the d*** things apart from the strike NJ's and don't do stupid things with them that lead to leaving them outside a base and/or out of fuel; the same, if not more, goes for choppers. It really ****es me off when I do that - they should have made the SAM attribute much more NOTICABLE somehow.

As to armoring formers, sometimes it doesn't cost any more to add armor to the design, so it is hard to resist, and I think that a totally unarmored former has a 50% non-combatant penalty and if that is true, then you are getting even more for your (zero) investment. On the other hand, upgrading to an armored design is more expensive than to an equivalent unarmored one, so you may have to pay the price in upgrade costs or by using an extra DW slot.

Sometimes I protect formers with Clean-AAA-armored infantry or rovers (and occasionally some crawlers too), but as has been said, if you have a problem with your formers getting bombed, you may really have a bigger problem than that and taking the offensive is likely called for.

[mrdynamic]

Originally posted by johndmuller
- they should have made the SAM attribute much more NOTICABLE somehow.

I do that to myself quite often also. The only way I can tell them apart is if I rename the SAM thing to DOG.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

John D.

You are absolutely correct. (Brain cramp and lack of playing SMAC for ages.) Fighter vs. Bomber in air is resolved at Fighter weapon vs. Bomber Armor. I humbly apologize for the above misinformation. That being said a fighter type is very unlikely to have to use it's armor except in the rare situation that it is called upon to defend itself vs. ground unit (i.e. it is caught inside it's base.) This of course if for noodlejets only as a chopper outside the base is fair game to any unit except a probe team as the chopper is considered grounded.

Being away so long looks like I missed some thread doosies of "to armor or not to armor your noodles".

You da man JohnD!

Og

[k.k.fly]

Edit: AAA & SAM stuff corrected

AAA is for defending against aircrafts, it enhances the defense rating of equipped units.

SAM is for attacking aircrafts, it enables equipped units to have the ability to attack air units.

If I have invented armor 6, I would build few infantries of 1-5-1 or 1-4-1 with AAA ability and place on my formers.

In addition to that, if have weapon 6, I would build few rovers with 6-1-2 or 5-1-2 with SAM ability as mobile flak vehicles, making sure those attacking aircrafts don't go home without a fight.

You can also place your interceptors in cities using "automated air defense" (ctrl+shift+B), and if your formers are near your bases, interceptors will scramble and intercept enemy attackers.

If your formers are away from bases, or you want to protect your supply convoys, which are extracting resources away from your base grids, build an airbase nearby and use automated air defense too.

I would use the infantries and rover combo, because it is cheaper, and expandable.

Ps. Instead of automated air defense, you may also use "put units on alert" on your interceptor using shift + L, but sometimes your interceptors won't scramble to intercept.

[Yxklyx]

Yes, fighters vs bombers is generally done by comparing fighter's attack vs bomber's defense, plus the fighter gets a +100% modifier for SAM - so typically the odds are around 20:1 with the fighter hardly taking any damage; HOWEVER, when a fighter INTERCEPTS it's fighter's attack vs bomber's attack +100% for SAM - so these odds are typically only around 2:1 hence the fighter will take lots of damage when intercepting (same goes for intercepting copters). Relying on interception is not a very good idea.