Using Modern Units

[Gatekeeper]

It's a "senior moment," -Jrabbit. I've always been able to parachute directly into evil enemy cities that have had their defenders blown out of existence.

Gatekeeper

[Bloody Monk]

Re: Re: Trying to defend the helicopter

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I need to devise some small continent/giga map games so that I can make carriers useful. Normally, it's easier just to use Engineers to build airbases.

Six, et all,

Could you expand on this, please?? How to use airbases?? Thanks

Monk

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Could be a Mac-thing bunnyman - you most certainly can paradrop into empty enemy cities and any friendly city in range ...

Stu

Probably just another Senior Moment.

Nice avatar, Stu!

[Elephant]

Originally posted by Old n Slow

News to me -- but then I was willing to rehome caravans until I was told that is 'just not done'.

That's your "bad habits" from CFC GOTM shining through...

[Scouse Gits]

Could be a Mac-thing bunnyman - you most certainly can paradrop into empty enemy cities and any friendly city in range ...

Stu

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, you can paradrop into an empty city. You can also march all around them too, i.e. empty AI cities do not generate ZOC.

I could swear this was among my early learnings (like, first time I got paratroops, building them to see what they could do)...

But I'm old and, lately, of frail mind...

Will confirm during upcoming turnset.

[Old n Slow]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

News to me -- but then I was willing to rehome caravans until I was told that is 'just not done'.

[gunkulator]

Yes, you can paradrop into an empty city. You can also march all around them too, i.e. empty AI cities do not generate ZOC.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Are you sure? I could swear that an undefended city could be captured by paratroops by landing directly in it.

[-Jrabbit]

Drop in adjacent and walk in.

I always thought it odd that one couldn't parachute into a city, but then again Civ2 planes can't do flyovers, either -- they must land or attack.

[Elephant]

You can follow the heli with some Fighters on one-way trips; clean up the Partisans and land in the new city, assuming you know it wont be taken back right away. Can you Para-transport into a new city without Airport, or do you have to drop next door and walk in?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Re: Trying to defend the helicopter

Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida
I agree helicopters are quite expensive and way too fragile. But, if I am not wrong, they're the only air unit that can capture a city. As they have a long range, it can be quite useful to occupy cities that have been attacked by your bombers and are not linked to railroads.

I know it's not the best strategy, but I like an aircraft carrier or two to go with my transports. Bombers are very efficient and helicopters patrols around a convoy are a very good way to spot the ennemy from far away. Then the bombers take business.

I've played quite a lot of SP games with Gigamaps and small continents ...

The problem with taking a city with a heli is that the partisans that appear will crush the helicopter next turn. Now, if the heli didn't expend all its movement in taking the city, it would be a different story.

I need to devise some small continent/giga map games so that I can make carriers useful. Normally, it's easier just to use Engineers to build airbases.

[Julius Brenzaida]

Trying to defend the helicopter

I agree helicopters are quite expensive and way too fragile. But, if I am not wrong, they're the only air unit that can capture a city. As they have a long range, it can be quite useful to occupy cities that have been attacked by your bombers and are not linked to railroads.

I know it's not the best strategy, but I like an aircraft carrier or two to go with my transports. Bombers are very efficient and helicopters patrols around a convoy are a very good way to spot the ennemy from far away. Then the bombers take business.

I've played quite a lot of SP games with Gigamaps and small continents ...

[duke o' york]

In that situation the AI is toast anyway.

I was thinking that if you had an airbase/carrier on one side of the city and a railroad with a couple of artillery on the other, then using a dip to get the artillery around the city to attack from beneath the bomber is underhand and an exploit. Attacking from a fortress would be fairer, but as you said, you can't legislate for it so it's best to just have it on trust. I could easily put together a case for having an airbase handily positioned on a hill within my city boundary, but honour dictates that this is cheating.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by duke o' york
As far as I'm concerned then you could attack under a bomber if you would have done anyway. If the bomber has attacked over the railroad and you pile in your attacking armies along there then all well and good. If you circle the city to ensure that you attack from underneath the bomber then that'd be unsporting.

I think this is impossible to adjudicate. I mean, attacking from any tile is all the same for a Bomber. Obviously if the Bomber attacks from a rail tile, though, other units can benefit from the 'shield' better. How can anyone tell if this is intentional? Given that the AI rails everything.