Transport aircraft in Civ II?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Originally posted by our_man
Yes, paradropping ships can capture unoccupied cities.

If you give it the sub tag too, can it still take cities?

[our_man]

Yes, it works even with the sub tag.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Sounds cool, looks cooler!

Will it be released in the near future?

Don't hold your breath. It's one of several scenarios I partially developed while trying to learn the ToT system. Right now I'm just about done Warlords of China, then there's a couple of others a little farther along then this one.

I have a dillema with Barsoom. I can't decide whether to design it as a quest type scenario, which is consistent with the books (sequential adventures of a hero, in this case, John Carter) or as multiplayer. There's 7 civs, and a very strong barbarian element, plus interesting new tactics, ie. paratrooping ships which won't work with the AI. Comments?

Here's the title page:

[Straybow]

Can paradropping 'ships' capture unoccupied cities?

A paradrop unit with Att=0 should not be able to capture a city (it is only a transport unit). Unless the paradrop algorithm doesn't check attack strength…

The idea of air transport units is not good. Transport aircraft have never been effective at moving full scale fighting units, only supplies. Paratroops only carry enough supplies for a few days. Unless reinforced or relieved by regulars they can't engage in extended operations.

In the Berlin Airlift nearly the entire US WWII air transport fleet was diverted to the task, and they were able to keep the city just above starvation level.

When the blocade was finally lifted one steam-powered train delivered more than a week's worth of flights.

Today, a C5 or C17 can only lift one MBT, so it would take 700+ flights to move an armored division. Then consider all the supplies needed for extended combat (especially fuel) and airlifting becomes dreadfully inadequate.

Allowing one unit to be moved into or out of a city with a huge Airport in one turn is in some ways generous. By contrast, a few ships can haul a division anywhere in the world in a month.

[Case]

Originally posted by Straybow
The idea of air transport units is not good.

Whatever their limitations, they sure beat the current airports, what whith their unlimited range and zero turnaround time.

Transport aircraft have never been effective at moving full scale fighting units, only supplies.

Urm, you may want to read up on your military history - as early as the 1930s air transport was moving entire military units and keeping them sustained through tough combat. In WW2 the Burma campaign was nearly totally dependant on air supply, with entire infantry divisions being moved and sustained by air transport alone.

In the Berlin Airlift nearly the entire US WWII air transport fleet was diverted to the task, and they were able to keep the city just above starvation level.

A key lesson learnt in the Berlin Airlift was that the Allies existing transports were too small. Hence, the development of the C-130 and thier ilk, each of which can carry the loads of several C-47s or C-54s.

Today, a C5 or C17 can only lift one MBT, so it would take 700+ flights to move an armored division. Then consider all the supplies needed for extended combat (especially fuel) and airlifting becomes dreadfully inadequate.

Read up on the US Army's new Stryker Brigades - they're intended to be able to deploy a full brigade to anywhere in the world in 72 hours and be kept supplied by air transport alone. Given the recent performance of US Air Transport in Afganistan (where everything is moved by air), it's perfectly feasible for military campaigns to be sustained by aircraft alone.

[Pablostuka]

Well...I think transport aircraft are vital in modern military operations. I will use this concept extensively in my current scenario project.

These units will have the max paradrop range (100), and a limited amount of units to carry. Helicopters will carry only 1 unit, and only infantry (house rule).

Medium transports (like the CN-235) will carry 2 infantry units, or a light vehicle unit.

Heavy transports (like the C-130) will carry 3 infantry units, 2 light vehicles or 1 heavy vehicles unit.

If you are using more modern transports (like the C-5 Galaxy), you should increase the number of units carried, but I won't use this kind of unit in my scenario.

I have tested it in game, and works very well ...but it will only be a multiplayer scenario, because the AI won't know how to use them in game

Here are the units I've designed: CASA CN-235 and C-130 Hercules

[Ecthy]

I've once considered doing some 21st century scenario.

TransAll transport planes would have been an obligation here

[Elok]

Come to think of it, how can the "planes" be intercepted if they paradrop? Won't the paradrop just take place as planned even if there are thirty AA guns in the way?
Also, this method eliminates the possibility of using Airports to make veteran air units and renders paradropping for any other units nonsensical. You seem to be giving up a lot for what seems a minor gameplay aspect. "Bringing supplies to frontline cities" is just a matter of airlifting caravans, and is AI-friendly to boot.
It's your scenario, of course, I'm just wondering why. I always thought "never sacrifice gameplay for realism" was the number-one rule of scenario design.

[Ecthy]

Well Elok, I suppose there is no way of intercepting paratroopers in Civ2