AU mod: Balancing Airpower

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Risa
They are dangerous to my ships, at least.

This has not been under discussion - the proposal is just for removing lethal LANDbombard. I would hope lethal Sea bombard would stay.

I would be very much for the abolition of lethal land bombard for Bombers. This is just a human exploit, more or less. Whether the AI handles Bombers well or not after the change is not so much the issue - it is what the HUMAN does that is the problem here.

And with my scant experience against AI Bombers I see them in action surprisingly often at Monarch when the AI gets them. Although we can't say whether it would change the AI without testing, this would certainly make the player think a little more.

If an AI is just going to bomb a city's defenders then there isn't all that much danger - lethal bombard or no. It would have to follow up with land units, and Bombers will still be useful then without the lethal bombard.

The Helicopter change is a little more difficult, IMO, but I think it is worth testing out with lethal land bombard. As for the AI flag change - I am not sure what effect this would really have, sounds like it needs testing. The add AA to certain foot-units SOUNDS like too much. If someone did some tests showing the opposite, then I'd go with it.

[Risa]

Eh sorry, my mind was wandering around when I posted.

In my experience, AI's bombers pose a significant threat to my planes because air units get bombing before ground units. Without lethal bombardment, it'll only be nauseous, no longer real trouble.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Not a worry, Risa.

In fact lethal sea bombard for air units was argued for very strongly on these forums with Civ3.

[nbarclay]

Without lethal land bombardment, a lot of the incentive for players to choose bombers (which can be shot down) over artillery (which can't) as a means of reducing enemy cities would go away.

If infantry-type units had a chance of shooting down aircraft, that would radically reduce the number of situations where tech disparities allow a player to bomb a city's defenders into oblivion without risk of suffering losses in return. If enough bombers would tend to get shot down against a typical AI city, blasting a city's defenders into dust with bombers would not be clearly the most cost-effective way to deal with AI cities. (Although reducing defenders to one hit point with artillery and then using bombers to finish them off might offer an intermediate tactic that takes advantage of lethal land bombardment without placing as many bombers at risk.)

The down side is that with a good enoguh anti-aircraft defense for infantry-type units to pose a serious risk to bombers, it would be a lot more dangerous for an AI to attack a human infantry/artillery stack with bombers. So a lot of whether adding some anti-aircraft capability for infantry-type units would be good or bad would depend on whether the AI would choose lightly defended targets or go after the main stacks where their risk of being shot down is a lot higher. (That target selection issue also has a lot to do with whether lethal land bombardment itself is good or bad, since attacking small stacks can provide outright kills for an AI without truly huge numbers of bombers while attacking large ones cannot.)

Nathan

[ducki]

So, yes, it's like adding a new unit, because a new unit is needed: something with lethal bombardment, but with lesser strength than a Bomber.

Wouldn't it be easier and less extreme to simply weaken the Bomber?
As opposed to leaving the Bomber too strong and add another unit with the capability that the AI handles poorly?

[alexman]

That's certainly an option, although it would also affect sea/air combat (which I have no idea if it's balanced now).

Also, the role of bombers would be moved from to killing everything in sight (stock C3C), to killing already softened targets. The AI would be no better in handling that bomber strategy than it would the modded Helicopters.

[Risa]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The down side is that with a good enoguh anti-aircraft defense for infantry-type units to pose a serious risk to bombers, it would be a lot more dangerous for an AI to attack a human infantry/artillery stack with bombers. So a lot of whether adding some anti-aircraft capability for infantry-type units would be good or bad would depend on whether the AI would choose lightly defended targets or go after the main stacks where their risk of being shot down is a lot higher. (That target selection issue also has a lot to do with whether lethal land bombardment itself is good or bad, since attacking small stacks can provide outright kills for an AI without truly huge numbers of bombers while attacking large ones cannot.)

They won't have a good enough AA ability. By alexman's proposal, infantry-type units will shoot down 1 bomber in 6 at most. That is acceptable.

The real down side is doubling defense of air units will affect naval bombardment. Since naval bombards hit air units before ground units, even a stack of enemy frigates can significantly weaken your air force under stock rules.

[Kuciwalker]

They won't have a good enough AA ability. By alexman's proposal, infantry-type units will shoot down 1 bomber in 6 at most. That is acceptable.

One in six?! That's a LOT.

Oh, and it'd be closer to one in five

[nbarclay]

Losing one bomber in six (or five) would almost certainly make the "kill everything with bombers" strategy less cost-effective than the "reduce everything to one hit point with artillery and attack with land forces" strategy, or at least not dramatically stronger. That should be enough to make lethal land bombardment not seriously overpowered (at least beyond the extent to which alternative approaches already are). But would it end up hurting bombers' value too much?

Nathan

[pauli]

i still think the ability should ONLY be added to guerillas and tow infantry.

[alexman]

Under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Remove lethal land bombard from bombers. Give Helicopters lethal land bombard with strength 6, ROF 3, and reduce their defense to 1.
2. Yes/No: Give AA capability to Guerilla and TOW Infantry.
3. Yes/No: Give AA capability to Infantry and Mech Infantry. Double attack and defense of all air units and AA strength of ground/naval units with AA capability in stock C3C.

Voting on Friday.

[donZappo]

If AA is given to Guerrilas, TOW Infantry, Infantry, or Mech Infantry what AA values would be used? I thought it would work fine if Infantry as just given an AA value of 1 since this would still let them defend against aircraft to some degree while making flak still a better option when available. I guess guerillas should have it, too, just to make sure that resource deprived civs aren't ultimately screwed over by humans who go straight to bombers.

Personally, I like the idea of either infantry or guerillas having some sort of AA capabilities. Both of these units come early enough in the tech tree that the AI should have them by the time humans have bombers. If they don't then they weren't a threat anyways. The big issue at this point in the game is humans rushing to bombers and exploiting an AI that can't do anything about those units. If these units could shoot down the bombers then the human might actually have to stop and think before he sends the planes over to devestate cities.

I'm not sure if TOW or Mech Infantry really need to have AA capabilites since by this time AA guns and fighters are readily available. I can't remember if AA guns (flak, SAMs) require resources, though. If they do, then I guess I could see TOW Infantry having AA abilities. I guess it really doesn't matter since their AA values would probably pale in comparison to true AA guns. But, if the given values did make it so that they would shoot down planes on a fairly regular basis wouldn't this actually detract from strategic choices for the human? You wouldn't have to take along flak or mobile SAMs as your TOW infantry would be more than capable of protecting your stack against enemy air power.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd rather Guerillas and TOW Infantry have it, because that promotes combined arms even when you have Rubber and Oil.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'd rather Guerillas and TOW Infantry have it, because that promotes combined arms even when you have Rubber and Oil.

That's only relevant for the human player's defensive strategies. The main reason we're considering giving conventinal units an AA capacity is to help the AI deal with human air power, not to help humans defend against AI aircraft.

If we give Guerillas and TOW Infantry AA capability but not Infantry and MechInfs, one of two things will almost certainly happen. Either the AIs will be left with no meaningful AA capability if they have the resources to build the more powerful defender, or they will build the weaker defender specifically for its AA capability and end up with a weaker defense against a ground attack. In my view, neither one of those possibilities is a good thing. Thus, if we give AA capability to Guerillas and TOW Infantry, we need to give it to Infantry and MechInfs as well.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman

1. Yes/No: Remove lethal land bombard from bombers. Give Helicopters lethal land bombard with strength 6, ROF 3, and reduce their defense to 1.
2. Yes/No: Give AA capability to Guerilla and TOW Infantry.
3. Yes/No: Give AA capability to Infantry and Mech Infantry. Double attack and defense of all air units and AA strength of ground/naval units with AA capability in stock C3C.

1. Yes.
2. NO.
3. NO.


Dominae