Bomber Range Petition

[teturkhan]

Aircraft Stats

Here are some stats on aircraft. Listed are the type of aircraft and the approximate range they should have on the various sized maps. The game limit of 8 is especially noticeable on the B52s.


Earth’s Circumference: 24,900 miles

• WW2 PLANE Range 830 miles
o Standard Map (100x100) 3.3 squares
o Large Map (130x130) 4.3 squares
o Huge Map (160x160) 5.3 squares
o Giga Map (250x250) 8.3 squares

• B52 Bomber Range 6300 miles
o Standard Map 29 squares
o Large Map 37 squares
o Huge Map 46 squares
o Giga Map 72 squares

• Helicopter Range 1255 miles
o standard Map 5 sqaures
o Large Map 7 squares
o Huge Map 8 squares
o Giga Map 13 squares

• Jet Fighter Range 2000 miles
o Standard Map 8 squares
o Large Map 10 squares
o Huge Map 13 squares
o Giga Map 20 squares

• Stealth Fighter 2000 miles (NEWLY ADJUSTED-APROX.)
o Standard Map 8 squares
o Large Map 10 squares
o Huge Map 13 squares
o Giga Map 20 squares

• Stealth Bomber 3800 miles
o Standard Map 15.26 squares
o Large Map 19.84 squares
o Huge Map 24.42 squares
o Giga Map 38.15 squares

[teturkhan]

Speed versus Range

In the mod that I am working on, I had originally wanted to raise unit movement rates to compensate for the Giga Map’s size, but now I am not so sure. The 8 limit range for aircraft is bad enough on larger maps, but it is made worse if I increase the movement of all other units. Shouldn’t aircraft in a single turn cover 5 times the amount of distance as the fastest land or sea unit? Need an opinion here.


• One last question: How does Speed & Range of aircraft work in the game?

Speed: Affects the rate of movement per turn. So then how come a fighter doesn’t move more spaces than a bomber, it is the faster unit?

Range: I think it should work this way - example - a jet fighter can move 45 spaces, it would need to fly over a city or airfield to refuel every 15 spaces. The bomber however should move fewer spaces per turn, let’s say 15 spaces but shouldn’t have to refuel for 45 straight spaces – meaning it could go on without having to refuel in a city or airfield for 3 turns.

Does this make sense to anyone?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I suspect it isn't being increased because the AI would have to be completely retuned to copeor turns would slow down even more as it analysed all its options. If this change is going to appear anywhere it will be in PtW but I expect that airbases will be the only change.

hi ,

if that would be the case

it would be very sad , .....because it has great potential

and the calculations , well actually it would not be bad for the AI either , now the AI builds almost no bombers , imagine the AI starting to build more , because then the AI would be able to bomb a far away enemy , and he would not have to go to war , because he has to cross the land of an other civ (!)

the airbases are good , but even with them the range has to be increased , at least in the editor , and with no less then 100

have a nice day

[Panag]

Re: reasoning

Originally posted by teturkhan
At least this thread is shedding some light on the reasons why we have this limit.

well my mod is almost done... I have adjusted most of the unit movement rates to compensate for the size of the map (larger/detailed map - the more the movement rate should be)...

funny, my ships go farther than my aircraft?!?!
Here are the changes in movement rates, if anyone gets a chance look through it and let me know of any irregularity. As for bombers, jet fighters etc how can I try to balance this? Is infinite range a solution? Ideas anyone?

hi ,

your post's are intresting

but there are no real reasons as to why the range is so small , its just a field the put a number in , and they keep it locked , maybe they just forgot to unlock it

what would really be intresting is that some-one of Firaxis would post some answers in this thread , so that we dont have to break our heads anymore on this

infinite range is not a solution , maybe for one or two units , like a spyplane or so , or a space ship in a mod , but when you flag it to airunits , nope its just a bit to far , ....

what they should do is to give the airunits a range of 100 and while they are at it , make sure that when the movement corresponds to what you as the player flag it

example ; you flag the stealthbomber a movement of 2 , it shall move twice the maximum range it has , but it shall not attack twice

the top of the shelf would be to give an option that would let that unit attack twice , and the option to keep things the way they are now

have a nice day

[Carver]

Re: Speed versus Range

Originally posted by teturkhan
Range: I think it should work this way - example - a jet fighter can move 45 spaces, it would need to fly over a city or airfield to refuel every 15 spaces. The bomber however should move fewer spaces per turn, let’s say 15 spaces but shouldn’t have to refuel for 45 straight spaces – meaning it could go on without having to refuel in a city or airfield for 3 turns.

Does this make sense to anyone?

That makes perfect sense, like the US/UK bombers in WW2 that would sometimes have to fly on without fighter escort. But this would be hard to implement with the current aircraft system, it would have to be overhauled.

Also, I'm not sure that the speed difference is really that great. Most fighters (except the F-22) have to travel at subsonic speeds the majority of the time because supersonic speeds require afterburner which burns up fuel like its nothing. So, over long distances, a fighter may move about 30% faster than a bomber.

[teturkhan]

very good point

Also, I'm not sure that the speed difference is really that great. Most fighters (except the F-22) have to travel at subsonic speeds the majority of the time because supersonic speeds require afterburner which burns up fuel like its nothing. So, over long distances, a fighter may move about 30% faster than a bomber.

True, I never thought of that...
Well I am running out of ideas... the system seemed to work so well in Civ2, wonder why they swayed from it...

[Thrawn05]

I think Firaxis should do two thigs

1: Allow the interger for range be up to a 1000 just like the other spinners

2: Allow the infinite bombardment range flag be acceptable to any air unit not just ICBM


If Firaxis does these two things, then I'll be more happy with Air missions.


PS: While they are at it, might as well do the same to bomdardment range value as well just to even things out.

[YC4B4U]

When considering changing the range of aircraft, I hope that it is determined exactly what aircraft are for.

In my mind they are for hitting ground targets at a distance from their base. And also protecting ground units and air units from being hit by enemy air units.

At this point in time your base must be very close to a target which I think misses the point. You may be able to do some ground support, but there is little scope for strategic level bombing.

What is my point - I want to be able to hit the unit or town just over the horizon but not on the other side of the map! (realism be damned)

[Firebird]

Both airrange and bombardment range should be adjustible. Like Panag says up to at least 100. Perhaps you don't see artillery bombard 100 miles away, but for the sake of scenarios there is no reason to let it stay at 8.

Think of bombardment as a magic attack from a great wizard in a fantasy-scenario. Or think of futuristic artillery in a scenario based in the year 2359.

Now, the problem is, according to Firaxis, that the limit on air/bombardmentrange is bound by other things in the game, so changing that limit means they have to modify other components of the game.

One of the problems might be that the AI would take exponentially longer time to make use of a longer air/bombardmentrange. If thats the case I might normaly keep the ranges like they are now, because the endgame is slow enough as it is. But the possibility of setting the range to, say, 50 should still be there. It will certanly be useful in some situations.

Oh, and let me just add, that to make the scenariomaking perfect (perhaps in XP #2 or 3 I fear) we must have an events system like in Civ2. Its a pity, really, because you cannot use all the new good features of Civ3 to make scenarios, which are more than a shadow of those good ones from Civ2.

[Robert]

I think large ranges for bombers will unbalance the game. The fun will be gone.

Pherhaps it's more realistic that the USA can bomb the hell out of Iraque with just sending B52's, but real war is not really funny at all.

If we have a large bomber range, the late game will be just all about bombers bombers bombers bombers, they'll fly all over the map.

all fun would be gone.

Sorry, I disagree, keep it this way.
Pherhaps unrealistic, but it's requires more strategic thinking to move your bombers to the spot of war.

I would rather see that cariers could carry more bombers. 8 or 12. 4 is too little.

[planetfall]

Views have changed. Used to think needed much more range, but found AI does not use well and increasing range would overbalance human.

Changes I think are needed:

1. jets, stealth F & B, bombers require airport for both construction and bases. Fighters, like spitfires, can land in any city. I don't recall any stories of B17's/B24's taking off from farm lands, but I don't know if Doolittle used fields for launch.

2. Increase range, slightly. Make the maximum somewhere between 10-12. Reason is not really for land but for sea, so you can have decent movement of navy and yet sea planes can launch from carriers and see approaching ships. I would be prefectly happy with a compromise of keeping 8 for land based aircraft but increase to 12 for sea. Not historical but would be a nice mix to the game by allowing navies to do something besides chew up time with meaningless moves.

[Easter_Lemming]

Well, I'm working on a modern military scenario with force levels taken from real life and it would be nice to model the American ability to send B-52's, B-1's and B-2's half the world away.

[Coracle]

Oh yes. I had hoped with Civ 3 unit MP's would change automatically with the map size. Right now they are too fast with really small maps, and too slow with the big ones.

Why can't this be done? The more tiles on a map the faster the MP's.

[Thrawn05]

I feel we are falling into the pit of contraversy that came with the idea of Lethal bombardment values. People said it would unbalance the game. Need I remind people, that this is a not rule change, but just an adjustment to the editor just like the lethal bombadment option.

[Panag]

hi ,

, most people want to increase the range

so , now , for ones and for all , it shall not unbalance the game (!) , they can keep the range they have now , but in order to comply with the wishes of 99.99 % they should "unlock" the range in the editor , .....

this way that little 00.01 % shall also be happy

and if we really want to know if it would unbalance the game , the only to know is to give it to us

off course some people shall complain , but hey , you dont have to flag the units with a range of 255 or so , ...

its intresting to talk about this , but , huh , where is Firaxis , ....come on guys , let us now something , ......

have a nice day