Air Combat -- Bring it back!

[shanorb]

Hello All,

I've been playing Civ and reading this forum for a few years and now finally have something to post, so here goes:

After going back and playing Civ2 just for fun, I realized that I miss the way aerial warfare is conducted there. I further realized that I haven't built a single plane or carrier since the early days of Civ3. For Civ4, I'd like to see them bring back the old style where you take your bombers in and pound units/cities, then get them back home without being decimated by enemy fighters. Or what about sending a fighter out to pick off the enemy Engineers/Settlers, or in this case, workers? For me, it's better that way than seeing the plane flash by and disappear. Of course, I could just be missing some settings in the Editor. If so, I'll be quiet now.

[Kuciwalker]

Yup, they are going to remove the entire air combat system and add code so that C2-style air units work because you preferred it

C2's air combat was absolutely horrible.

EDIT: I see you were talking about C4. My point still stands.

[shanorb]

Yeah, I meant the note as a suggestion for the next gen of Civ. What was so horrible about Civ2 air combat? Seems that in Civ3, the efforts of those creating graphics for air units are a bit wasted since they only flash across the attack area for less than a second. Oh well, to each his own...

[Cookie Monster]

While I do like the new air combat system in Civ3 I just wish there was a way to enjoy it more. Meaning slow down the animation so you can actually see the air/air-ground battle.

Not sure why so many don't like the old air combat system either.

It worked ok in SMAC(X) no?

[SporkPimp]

Originally posted by shanorb
What was so horrible about Civ2 air combat?

...I think it might have had something to do with the idea that it takes a Jet Fighter a few years to bomb a tank.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by SporkPimp
...I think it might have had something to do with the idea that it takes a Jet Fighter a few years to bomb a tank.

And bombers could interdict infantry.




I much prefer how it is done now, but I agree withthe above comment that it occurs quite fast (not that it gets to that point in many of my games...)

[Antrine]

a few years for a fighter to bomb a tank... hey, minor details I routinely send units out on 100 year missions

[Kuciwalker]

What was so horrible about Civ2 air combat?

1. Ground units and ships were somehow unable to pass under airplanes flying MILES ABOVE THEM.

2. A fighter was unable to shoot down a bomber until AFTER the bomber had made its attack.

3. It took longer to move a Stealth Fighter from one end of my empire to another than to move a Howitzer (given RR's).

4. Fighters, Bombers, Cruise Missiles, and ICBM's could be easily stopped by surrounding a city with Airfields.

5. AA units were merely normal units with bonus defense vs air units.

[shanorb]

Good points. Those things could be fixed, hopefully, in Civ4. Yes, logically, Civ3's system makes more sense, but in my humble opinion, takes a lot of the fun out of it. The one thing about it I'd love to see is being able to control the air units with the same granularity I can control the ground ones.

One idea that comes to mind is to have air units be invisible to ground units that can't attack them to prevent warriors from knocking down a 1hp bomber. The unit could pass by or even stay on the tile never knowing the plane was above it...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by skywalker

What was so horrible about Civ2 air combat?

1. Ground units and ships were somehow unable to pass under airplanes flying MILES ABOVE THEM.

2. A fighter was unable to shoot down a bomber until AFTER the bomber had made its attack.

3. It took longer to move a Stealth Fighter from one end of my empire to another than to move a Howitzer (given RR's).

4. Fighters, Bombers, Cruise Missiles, and ICBM's could be easily stopped by surrounding a city with Airfields.

5. AA units were merely normal units with bonus defense vs air units.

Yes indeed good points, but there is at least one that is a downside to the Civ3 way - Bombers can't be attacked in the open actively as they never ARE in the open to be attacked. It has to be via the passive counterattack when the bomber is already itself attacking. Being able to have air units occupy the same spaces as other civ's units could be a possibility, with the option to attack or not and just continue a flyover.

[The Mad Monk]

I like civ3's system better, as it really is more realistic.

Of course, one of my fonder Civ2 memories is sending spies out to buy enemy bombers before they could return after attcking...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I like civ3's system better, as it really is more realistic.

Of course, one of my fonder Civ2 memories is sending spies out to buy enemy bombers before they could return after attcking...

How would that work then? They spell out words of propaganda with their black-leather-clad selves against the green of the ground? They have guns that shoot defection kits up to the pilots and gunners? Attracting the pilots to land and defect at the mere sight of them...?

[The Mad Monk]

I figured they used James Bond - style jet packs.

[rkarmes]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Yes indeed good points, but there is at least one that is a downside to the Civ3 way - Bombers can't be attacked in the open actively as they never ARE in the open to be attacked. It has to be via the passive counterattack when the bomber is already itself attacking. Being able to have air units occupy the same spaces as other civ's units could be a possibility, with the option to attack or not and just continue a flyover.

Not entirely true. You can offensively attack bombers by bombardment of the city / airfield they fly out of. In fact, this is a critical strategy to use if the enemy AI is using bombers against you.

I like the current system since it accurately reflects how air units are used in the "Real" world.

Rob

[Antrine]

Gosh darn, I never used the airfield defense strategy or the 'James Bond' bribe.