Air Combat...ok, but NO AIRBASES!?!?!

[Ironwood]

I wonder if one can land (or rather, station) an air unit in a colony? This could very easily be the Civ3 equivalant of an "airbase." You can always build colonies, and once one has air units, it doesn't take any kind of specialized technology to make an air base (just flatten out the ground and put in some refueling stations and other support facilities). I don't think colonies count against the governmental city limit.

[kolpo]

I like that fact taht there are no airbase because it makes carriers and allies in strategical locations(who are both very important in quite all international wars of the last years like Irak and Kososvo)

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by kolpo
I like that fact taht there are no airbase because it makes carriers and allies in strategical locations(who are both very important in quite all international wars of the last years like Irak and Kososvo)

Except both Iraq and Kosovo are perfect examples of airbases being more important in launching sustained airstrikes than carriers of cities. Saudi has very few cities to speak of, but a great number of airstrips out there in the desert.

I think the lack of airbases will make capturing enemy cities too important in the later game. I won't be able to just build an airstrip and raze all the cities I take using massive air superiority because I'm going to need them to operate out of.

David

[izmircali]

Also if airbases are out, what about refueling etc. I think they definetely be in so I can patrol borders better and if any aircraft get hit or intercepted far from my carrier I'd rather them go to an airbase I can protect with troops.

Also carriers are too vulnerable to cruise missile attacks. In civ2 the enemy basically had a missile defense system against carrier groups so you could only bomb coastal cities. With an airbase its not like a stack where all units can get waxed at once (remember 9 units lost on a fully stacked carrier?)

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by izmircali

I think they definetely be in so I can patrol borders better and if any aircraft get hit or intercepted far from my carrier I'd rather them go to an airbase I can protect with troops.

You're right, we need those airbases for refueling and
as mission launchpads. Hopefully Firaxis has developed
a well working AU system.

[The Templar]

On a related note ...
In Civ2, AI planes did not have fuel (the CTP AIs did have fuel and consequentially the AI planes crashed alot). Will the AI cheat with respect to mission ranges?

[Rasbelin]

So the conclusion is that the airfields
are an important part of the AU and missile system,
and that most of us want them to be found in Civ III.
They can't be replaced with the h.copters or
with enchanged paratroopers.

They are a must have.

[korn469]

ever heard of Guadalcanal? how about Diego Garcia?

airbases are important especially if you consider this carefully

the operational range of the stealth bomber is 8 unless firaxis has changed that then a stealth bomber becomes almost useless on a huge map (180x180) even with a carrier (a battleship only has a move of 4, so a carrier will have at most a move of 6)

however i don't think civ3 will have airbases unless they were added shortly before the game went gold, because forts and railroads demonstrate that tile improvements are always in little gold circles on the tech chart and there isn't a gold circle on the tech chart that could represent an airbase

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
the operational range of the stealth bomber is 8 unless firaxis has changed that

I have not seen a single Civ-3 unit presented so far that havent changed its ADM-stats compared with its Civ-2 counterpart. Even some pre-modern horseback-units now have a move-factor of 3 (giving them an operational range of 9 together with the road-bonus multiplier - at least within your own borders, and through peaceful passage-right allowing foreign Civs. Not to mention roads through no-mans-land (= full speed).

I think we can safely assume that Civ-3 bombers will have a significantly extended operational range compared with its Civ-2 counterpart. I also assume that the hampering invasion-move factors that applies to land-units (road-bonus doesnt count unless you control the area), doesnt apply to either sea or air-units (thus making these types of units much more useful and important in the invasion-fase).

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ralf


I have not seen a single Civ-3 unit presented so far that havent changed its ADM-stats compared with its Civ-2 counterpart. Even some pre-modern horseback-units now have a move-factor of 3 (giving them an operational range of 9 together with the road-bonus multiplier - at least within your own borders).

I think we can safely assume that Civ-3 bombers will have a significantly extended operational range compared with its Civ-2 counterpart. I also assume that the hampering invasion-move factors that applies to land-units (road-bonus doesnt count unless you control the area), doesnt apply to either sea or air-units (thus making these types of units much more useful and important in the invasion-fase).

We should also take into account that Civ3 maps will potentially be a lot larger than those in Civ2. So 'enhanced' movement is needed anyway to cover up some of the bigger distances involved. Unless Firaxis thought units moved too fast somehow in Civ2... I didn't think so at least.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
We should also take into account that Civ3 maps will potentially be a lot larger than those in Civ2.

Hmm - I didnt think of that, but you are right. Heres a comparison:

Civ-2 standard world: 50 x 80. Compare with Civ-3 standard world: 100 x 100 tiles.
Civ-2 large world: 75 x 120. Compare with Civ-3 large world: 140 x 140.

Whoa! I hope that the roads & RR:s are a correspondingly faster to build in Civ-3, compared with Civ-2.

[korn469]

we can assume all we want to but here are the stats with screenshots to back them up

chinese rider 4.4.3 (civ3.com)

cavalry 6.3.3 (civ3.com)

tank 16.10.2

http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/autoimage.cgi?/civ3images/screen101801/oct07b.jpg

modern armor 24.14.3
modernarmor.jpg

stealth bomber 0(8).2.8

http://www.multiplayer.it/show.php3?img=/immagini/articoli/1500/s_img15.jpg

EDIT: the urls should work now

[Ralf]

Your links dont work.

Anyway, the only worrying factor here is the operational range for the Stealth Bomber. Only eight? Well, one can easily adjust that through the brand new game-editor if one wants to change that.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Patriqvium

That means that Flight makes the Colossus (I think) obsolete.

So it would be the same as in the original Civ.

[korn469]

Ralf

the links should work now

think about this, an undamaged tank now cannot kill an undamaged cavalry unit in civ3, because since a cav unit is fater it can always retreat from the tank if the tank does start to damage it

also the Russian T-34 and the american Sherman Tank are both represented by the tank...both of them seem like they should be as fast as horse mounted units, and an M1 abrams seems like it should be faster than a horse mounted unit

though the stealth bomber now has a shorter range than it did in civ2, if rate of fire means it can execute four air missions a turn, the stealth bomber in civ3 can attack 8 times as much as the stealth bomber in civ2

also the battleship has a speed of 4
one last interesting thing is that the stealth bomber and the battleship both have a bombard value of 8