Is the air mission system good?

[OldCharlie]

I really like the air mission concept. I do think it could be tweeked some, but the basic idea is a big step forward. I like the way it simplifies and speeds up the game. Want to spend my time on strategy and not manually moving units from place to place. And there were problems with the way planes could be used to blockade in the previous versions. I think air power is better balanced with the ground forces in CIV III.

Think an "Escort" mission or "Air Army" would be an improvement. I do wonder, though, how useful the Air Army would be. Would it really add anything to the game that is not already there. Seems like it would just require larger fleets of fighters for defense and divert attention from some other aspect of the game, which is primarily about land acquisition, not air power.

Why not just bomb a target with fighters before sending in bombers to clear the enemy fighters?

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by OldCharlie
Why not just bomb a target with fighters before sending in bombers to clear the enemy fighters?

This is precisely what I do when bombing targets in known enemy contested airspace. Works like a champ!

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by OldCharlie
Think an "Escort" mission or "Air Army" would be an improvement. I do wonder, though, how useful the Air Army would be. Would it really add anything to the game that is not already there. Seems like it would just require larger fleets of fighters for defense and divert attention from some other aspect of the game, which is primarily about land acquisition, not air power.

Fact is, IMHO, that Army should be used to model integrated forces, where cavalry, archers, pikeman move in coordinated effort (the great leader effect) to multiply their power.

As they are implemented in Civ III they are too simple: just use their hit points as a common pool. It's almost pointless to mix different kind of units, because they detract each others, not multiply.

Consider how more efficient could be a mixed army of a cannon, a cavalry and a couple of musketeer, where the attack routine works more on a "scissor win paper win stone". The army will negate the bad effects (you can always have the better unit to attack or defend against a menace).

Now, an Air Army (Wings) could be like a modern "packet": bomber to attack, fighters to defend, ecm/sead plane to suppress enemy SAM (I know they aren't on the game, but they can fit).
Think about WWII "Boxes" of B17 Fortress and B24 Liberators, with Lightning and Mustang for escort.

Same effect on Sea Army (Fleet), with a battleship, a carrier, a couple of cruiser/destroyer.

You can have a better unit grouping system (easy to move around) without too much details (we know Civ saga is not a wargame)

[Grrr]

I don't like it, but all my reasoning has already been mentioned by others.

[steamthunk]

Air power is too weak in Civ3. People have been saying that it unbalances the game, but in my opinion air power really IS that powerful.

One thing I'm not sure about in the air superiority mission. It seems that fighters only try to intercept from a carrier base if the carrier tile itself is attacked. I've tried to send a carrier fighter group with my battleships to protect them from bombers but unless everyone is on the same tile the fighters don't seem to challenge enemy aircraft. I made sure that all ships were within half the operational range of the fighters based on the carrier. Does anyone else have a different experience?

[Inverse Icarus]

i've never seen a fighter defend nearby ships while on a carrier, but i havent played the new patch too much.

[PrinceBimz]

I like how air units are handled in CIV3, I feel it is a great improvement. I think its more realistic to have an air unit assigned to a base and select those missions for it. An aircraft carrier is much more powerful then surface ships. A full compliment of aircraft onboard allows me to bomb several times and attack the enemy far inland instead of limited to coastlines only with offshore bombardment. In addition to gound support, in a naval battle a carrier will allow me to launch planes and bomb enemy ships at long range before they can even get close to surface gunnery action. This gives me an upper hand in winning the battle.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by PrinceBimz
I like how air units are handled in CIV3, I feel it is a great improvement. I think its more realistic to have an air unit assigned to a base and select those missions for it. An aircraft carrier is much more powerful then surface ships. A full compliment of aircraft onboard allows me to bomb several times and attack the enemy far inland instead of limited to coastlines only with offshore bombardment. In addition to gound support, in a naval battle a carrier will allow me to launch planes and bomb enemy ships at long range before they can even get close to surface gunnery action. This gives me an upper hand in winning the battle.

I feel this is all fine and dandy for bombing/precision attack runs (except for minimal damage being done to units, which isn't completely accurate), but I feel that the air supremacy deal should be worked out a little better than it is. There ought to be some way of using fighters to protect a certain area from enemy bombing, and likewise, a more effective way in countering this escort. I could draw up a better system if I wanted to, and prove my point, but, frankly I don't feel like it because it doesn't really matter anyways.

[Jaybe]

Fighters are used to 'use up' enemy Air Superiority tasked fighters with (default) 50% chance of being intercepted. Interceptors are the attackers, and attack strength is (default) twice the defense strength of Fighters, Jet Fighters & F-15s. I disagree with this Attack/Defense strength ratio.

I have increased defense strength to '1 less than attack strength' (except for F-15: 8/8 instead of 8/7). Allows for offensive air superiority missions without undue losses. The attacker in air-to-air combat has the advantage only when he sights the enemy first, and that basically applies only with individual plane combat.

I haven't gotten to the point yet of seeing how this plays out in a game.

[notyoueither]

Why Jaybe. I can read the fine print. Make it smaller.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by steamthunk
One thing I'm not sure about in the air superiority mission. It seems that fighters only try to intercept from a carrier base if the carrier tile itself is attacked. I've tried to send a carrier fighter group with my battleships to protect them from bombers but unless everyone is on the same tile the fighters don't seem to challenge enemy aircraft. I made sure that all ships were within half the operational range of the fighters based on the carrier. Does anyone else have a different experience?

Yes. My last game of 1.17. Jets from my Carriers shot down many Bombers trying to bomb my beach head in an invasion. The Carriers and their escorting Fleet were parked 2 squares off the coast.

[Mickeyj]

A feature that would help is an escort option for the fighters. When a fighter escorts a bomber on a bombing run and is intercepted the fighter should engage the enemy interceptor.

[notyoueither]

An escort mission may be too complex. Simple is their watchword.

The system as it stands is quite good. I've fought massive actions involving 100s of units per side with Air Forces of 30 to 70 units each.

Bomb with Fighters first. The interceptors will come up. Once you have gone through with your Fighters, or several of them have bombed with no interception, then proceed with the Bombers.

The defender will have the advantage and will have a favourable loss ratio. If you have enough Fighters you will win total Air Superiority as you burn through his Fighters.

[steamthunk]

Given the constraints of the CivIII combat system I think what Jaybe suggests about equalizing the attack/defense values makes sense. I thought that the defense value for the F-15 should have been 1 or 2 higher than a normal jet fighter to represent American advantages in developing fighters with sophisticated electronics and guidance systems that should assist survivability and in engaging the enemy first (very important). It'd be nice if its range were just a bit longer too.

All things being equal I'm inclined to believe that there's no inherent advantage to being an attacker or defender once a dogfight starts which is what my mod would reflect (well none that are easily modelled by the Civ3 system anyway).
I'd also like to see the carrier hold more the 4 aircraft. I like the Civ2 capacity of 8. A modern aircraft carrier has a lot of striking power which is not quite reflected in Civ3 IMHO.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I say we bring back airbases -
Fighters stationed there on air-sup missions will attack any enemy plane within its range.
The fighters in cities will only defend that city.
Then we have another strategic target to go after.