Air Units -- How will they work?

[Marcus Agrippa]

True.

There's another interesting aspect of realistic air movement... it should depend on the size of the map. A WW2 era bomber on a full sized map shouldn't be able to fly much farther than, say, London to Rome on a single bombing raid. That might be 12 spaces on a full-sized map of the world... but it might be 36 spaces on a zoomed-in map of Europe.

Thus, there should be an "Air Movement" factor for each type of real-world map. It could be 1/2, 1, 2, 3, etc. All aircraft would have that number multiplied to their movement. Of course, you could also simply edit the numbers for custom scenarios, but the AMF would be good for scenario-creaters who don't want to spend a lot of time changing the units.

[Jason Beaudoin]

To get back to topic...

When I used to play HQ Command (like i said in my previous message), air superiority was crucial in any combat operation, just as it should be in any modern combat game.

I do think something should be done about air warfare. It would be very simple to implement (as I've described it), and it would add so much to the game.

[Inverse Icarus]

the way i see it, fighters should have to refuel each turn, but bombers could be extended to 10.

[ancient]

my two cents; if a airplane is flying over a modern city/unit the enemy (if enemy) should have a chance to shoot it down (maybe 30 percent chance for unit 50 for city) as to make itr harder to penentrate into enemy territory avoiding confrontations

[Admiral]

That would be good, though it reminds me of the times the AI stealth bombers wwould sit outside my cities for turns on end.

There could also be in-air refueling, which would extend the range of fighters to that of a bomber.

[Trifna]

Bombard

Maybe planes should be able to bombard other than units and cities. Think of the Kosovo war... Bridges, infrastructures, roads, etc, etc. Not only military units at all...

[General Ludd]

I agree that it'd be nice to have a longer flight time for bombers (and longer range for fighters) but I think 10 turns is too high, maybe something like 4-5 turns would be better, limiting the amout of times it can attack before refueling.... though using this system could cause problems with not being able to get back to a city in time, so maybe just an extended range would be better.

[TechWins]

Marucs your idea is good and has potential but it does have some flaws.

the way i see it, fighters should have to refuel each turn, but bombers could be extended to 10.

Maybe for fighters they have to refuel every two turns. That would enable them to go do their fighting then on the next turn they would have to refuel.

if a airplane is flying over a modern city/unit the enemy (if enemy) should have a chance to shoot it down

This could be easily implemented into a real time game but it kind of goes against some of the premises of tbs. Then again so does MAD. But I still don't think this idea would work out effectively.

Trifna, I wouldn't be surprised if bombers were capable of bombardment. They would most likely only be able to bomb the defencive improvements in the city (i.e. city walls, coastal fortress). This idea would add some realism and fun to the game, so hopefully bombers are capable of bombardment.

so maybe just an extended range would be better.

Airplanes should have extended range and less refueling requirements. Having airfare become important would add a lot more desirement having a great airforce. This would, in turn, increase the strategy of warfare by having another means of great warfare force. IMO this would add more fun to the game while increasing the realism.

I'm not sure if you people want that kind of stuff (more fun and extra realism) so I guess we should keep the airfare system the way it is.

[Inverse Icarus]

you know what would be real cool FIRAXIS?

if planes could fly OVER CRAP WITHOUT ATTACKING IT.

if there is a stack of howies surrounded by warriors, why do i have to kill the warriors first?

[Mannamagnus]

I agree UberKrux!

[Grim Legacy]

There is certainly room for improvement regarding air units. The semi-floating status of them in Civ2 had some interesting side-effects.

For example: a killer tactic to attack an enemy city would be to attack it with a bomber first. After that, the bomber floats on a square adjacent to the city. Now you can continue the attack with tanks/howitzers -from under the bomber! The ground army can no longer be attacked by the enemy and enemy fighters have to deal with strong tanks instead of weak bombers.

Of course, air units could also be used to let your ground units pass through enemy zones of control without any trouble (move a step with the plane, move a step with the armor etc).

I do hope these 'quirks' will be improved upon!

Regarding railroad vs air movement: perhaps it's finally time to step off the idea of unlimited RR movement.

[Inverse Icarus]

oh Grim, the topic of unlimited rr moves has been beaten to a bloody pulp here at apolyton.

and the way i would have it?

unlimited moves, but the units turn ends when its done.

example: use a goto command and point to a spot connected by rail, or maybe even make it like airlifts, move from city to city only.

i like that idea now. scratch the last one.

[Sandman]

Nobody's mentioned helicopters. Getting damaged every turn was a very crude method of dictating fuel allowances.

Maybe combining the helicopters with another military unit, like has been done with the catapult, instead?

[Inverse Icarus]

i always thought choppers should carry units (i wanted 2 helis, transport and attack)

and no, i think the taking damage thing worked, because if u didnt move the chopper, just skipped its turn (space) it would regenerate.