My little aeroplane idea

[Office_Fox]

From reading this forum for a long time (not exactly a lurker, but I couldn`t sign up cause all I have is a hotmail address) I have seen that everyone is upset about how aircraft cant move as far as even engineers can across railroads.

You cant give them infinite movement because it would unbalance the game too much.

What you could do is give them a range of say 8 tiles/hexes/whatevers and if they land at an airfield, they can move again to the next one and the next one. If they attack they can only use thier 8 movement points to return to the desired airport.

[Jaguar]

Yes, and while theyre at it they should make aircraft be able to fly over things!!!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by FireDragon
Yes, and while theyre at it they should make aircraft be able to fly over things!!!

i concur.

i propose that aircraft do not attack unless they go OVER and object, and hit a key. (much like a worker building a road).

or perhaps you could TOGGLE between "auto attack" mode and "fly by" mode, whereas in fly by you fly over EVERYTHING, and in attack mode you attack as you hit units.

[Sean]

I very good idea indeed!! The airbases effectively become railways for planes! A very innovative solution

[Grumbold]

I thought that his had been proposed before and is certainly the way aircraft are allowed to re-stage in certain conventional wargames. An excellent idea.

[Deathwalker]

I agree planes should not be able to move as far as they like but rather have a range.
For fighters couldn't you have it so that in a set range from there location any plane that enter this could be attacked. Rather than having to wait for your turn to attack bombers. Wouldn't this be easyier.

[Rhuarc]

I really like the idea of using airports in cities as jumping points for a plane. As long as an airplane goes through a city that has an airport it is refueled, and then has all of it's movement points. So if a plane can move 10 tiles and on the 9th tile it enters a city that has an airport it refules and it can go another 10 tiles, then if on the fifth one it enters another airported city it refuels again. It should continue to do this until it goes 10 tiles without entering a city without an airport. There should also be something about number of turns the plane can be away from a city. Perhaps set the limit to 2. Then on the second turn it has to be moved to a city or crash. Also, what about accidents? I mean in real life military units are killed due to accidents. Why not have a very small random chance of your units having an "accident" and either being harmed or killed? Just a thought!!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

A fine idea. It gives planes more agility to defend attacks, as well. Instead of only being able to scramble fighters in a city that is attacked, they should be able to scramble when any friendly unit within their move range is attacked by air. The airbase/airport link could allow a fighter to defend multiple cities and areas.

[Inverse Icarus]

perhaps to make it a little more realistic, the city has to have an airport to refuel the plane that turn.

i'd hate some bum building a bogus city on an island near me, just to scout with figs.

and i hate it when they pick off engineers.

[ancient]

That is a very good idea, not only does it fix inequalitys in the game, but it also gives you a reason to build and defend air bases. However i think this should be restricted to Aircrafts only and not Missiles. Because that would make nuclear missiles to long ranged.

While were at it lets talk about missiles.

Missiles should not be able to fly to another city and land there. Instead they should have to be loaded into a 1) aircraft carrier, or sub, aegis cruiser 2) a land transport unit which they better include in civ 3 cause its needed 3) an airplane. Because in real life missiles can't land.

[Kestrel]

It has probably been said before but it would also be nice if Aircraft could take out certain inanimate features, e.g. Colonies, Mines, Sections of Railroad, Bridges, Buildings within Cities etc.

Perhaps a player could give the bombers an option to target certain city improvements and they then have a % chance of hitting / destroying those improvements based on several criteria.

This would simulate another way that aircraft have been used in conflicts in the past 50 years rather than just taking out troops / units.

[MORON]

I'm just wondering if it is a good idea to extend fighter's zone of control over one tile.

I don't like seeing bombers fighting behind the front line with bypassing a stack of fighters. ARG.

However i think this should be restricted to Aircrafts only and not Missiles. Because that would make nuclear missiles to long ranged.

What is wrong with that? Just give everyone cheaper SDI. Or maybe just M.A.D.

Or maybe give the civ of the world a makeshift nuclear anti-nuke missile like the Russians had around moscow as soon as a mahanten project is complete.

[Shoeless]

The problem is not that airplanes don't have enough movement, it is that railroads give land units too much movement. If any unit can go to any tile on the map, where is the strategy?

Shoeless

[jadlakha]

Stealth bombers can go from nevada to the middle east and back without refueling.

[Deathwalker]

I think that for the purposes of a civilization game you should be able to set a fighter (only) to defend and it would defect it's square and the ones around it from other planes, only plane This way you have a reason to set up air bases and have planes in then to defend, to protect your teritory. Though I am not sure if they should also defend against ships. Maybe the tech level can decide what they can defend against.

As a extra note though I think you should not have fortresses and airbases, but only one type of baes that evolves of time and technology.