Tweet
Air Superiority
Ability: attacks air units
Cost: 1
The air superior ability equips a unit with the missiles necessary to attack Needlejets in flight. Air superiority units gain a +100% combat advantage when attacking other air units in flight. Air-to-air combat is resolved by comparing attack factors—the armor value is ignored.
So, in fighter vs. bomber air-to-air combat, the bomber gets weapons and the fighter gets 2x weapons. Unfortunately, this always fails to happen:
1) When the fighter attacks a bomber during the bombers turn (counter-attack via scramble) the bomber properly gets weapons but the fighter improperly only gets weapons, without the 2x combat advantage.
2) When a fighter attacks a bomber on the fighter turn, the fighter properly gets 2x weapons, but the bomber improperly defends with armor.
These are, as far as I can tell, the only bugs in the air war. These “air superiority” bugs are major bugs. The 1st is fixable because fighter vs. fighter combat always works correctly. I’ve got some ideas on the 2nd that I’ll present another time. The game can play much much better. Read on.
(For the rest of this presentation, the term fighters will include SAM choppers, and the term bombers will include non-SAM choppers)
The 1st case: During your opponents turn, your fighters provide air cover for their base and for the units within their base’s air cover umbrella. If the attacking air unit is a fighter, your fighter scramble-counter-attacks, fighter vs. fighter, and the outcome works out the way the designers intended. However, if the attacking air unit is a bomber, things go awry. Your fighter scramble-counter-attacks the bomber. The battle goes weapons vs. weapons but the fighter does not get the 2x weapons it’s supposed to get. The fighter takes more damage that it should:
a) The fighter is supposed to lose and it loses; the bomber should be more damaged.
b) The fighter is supposed to win and it loses; -1 fighter, -1 non-combat unit.
c) The fighter wins; it’s more damaged than it should be for the next battle.
The fighter loses many battles that it should win. Even when the fighter wins, it takes too much damage. When the fighter wrongly loses there is frequently concurrent loss of a non-combat unit it scrambled to protect. Add to this the fact that the bomber costs less to build and has a greater range than the fighter, and you have a huge advantage to the offence. This is not the designer’s intent, and it is somewhat ruining the game.
Take a moment to think about how the game would play if this worked properly, and scrambled fighters got 2x weapons vs. bombers weapons. The offence would have to send in shorter ranged fighters to establish air superiority before sending in the bombers. Preparations for air battles would be different. The game would play much differently and arguably much better.
Establishing air superiority, the fix: The offence must establish air superiority over a base before launching an air attack with bombers against it or a unit within its air cover umbrella. Remember, all fighter vs. fighter combat works correctly. The offence establishes air superiority over a base by attacking it with fighters (or missiles). Once all enemy fighters have been engaged (engaged but not necessarily eliminated) that turn, then it would be free to attack the base or its surrounding units with all remaining air units of any type. Air superiority would have to be reestablished each turn. You would know when you’ve established air superiority when your fighter attack no longer causes a scramble-counter-attack. You could then attack or not if the “show odds before attack” feature is used.
If some of the surrounding units are covered by more than one base’s air cover umbrella, then each base involved must be engaged before those units could be attacked.
I’ve been thinking about this problem since I read about the partial solution to it now in use in the current ACDG, namely, choppers are not allowed to attack bases. I hope this "establishing air superiority" idea generates some discussion and if it stands up to critical analysis, I’d like to see it adapted to future PBEM’s. Hey, if nothing else, this rule will strengthen the AI since it would still be playing the old way.
Ability: attacks air units
Cost: 1
The air superior ability equips a unit with the missiles necessary to attack Needlejets in flight. Air superiority units gain a +100% combat advantage when attacking other air units in flight. Air-to-air combat is resolved by comparing attack factors—the armor value is ignored.
So, in fighter vs. bomber air-to-air combat, the bomber gets weapons and the fighter gets 2x weapons. Unfortunately, this always fails to happen:
1) When the fighter attacks a bomber during the bombers turn (counter-attack via scramble) the bomber properly gets weapons but the fighter improperly only gets weapons, without the 2x combat advantage.
2) When a fighter attacks a bomber on the fighter turn, the fighter properly gets 2x weapons, but the bomber improperly defends with armor.
These are, as far as I can tell, the only bugs in the air war. These “air superiority” bugs are major bugs. The 1st is fixable because fighter vs. fighter combat always works correctly. I’ve got some ideas on the 2nd that I’ll present another time. The game can play much much better. Read on.
(For the rest of this presentation, the term fighters will include SAM choppers, and the term bombers will include non-SAM choppers)
The 1st case: During your opponents turn, your fighters provide air cover for their base and for the units within their base’s air cover umbrella. If the attacking air unit is a fighter, your fighter scramble-counter-attacks, fighter vs. fighter, and the outcome works out the way the designers intended. However, if the attacking air unit is a bomber, things go awry. Your fighter scramble-counter-attacks the bomber. The battle goes weapons vs. weapons but the fighter does not get the 2x weapons it’s supposed to get. The fighter takes more damage that it should:
a) The fighter is supposed to lose and it loses; the bomber should be more damaged.
b) The fighter is supposed to win and it loses; -1 fighter, -1 non-combat unit.
c) The fighter wins; it’s more damaged than it should be for the next battle.
The fighter loses many battles that it should win. Even when the fighter wins, it takes too much damage. When the fighter wrongly loses there is frequently concurrent loss of a non-combat unit it scrambled to protect. Add to this the fact that the bomber costs less to build and has a greater range than the fighter, and you have a huge advantage to the offence. This is not the designer’s intent, and it is somewhat ruining the game.
Take a moment to think about how the game would play if this worked properly, and scrambled fighters got 2x weapons vs. bombers weapons. The offence would have to send in shorter ranged fighters to establish air superiority before sending in the bombers. Preparations for air battles would be different. The game would play much differently and arguably much better.
Establishing air superiority, the fix: The offence must establish air superiority over a base before launching an air attack with bombers against it or a unit within its air cover umbrella. Remember, all fighter vs. fighter combat works correctly. The offence establishes air superiority over a base by attacking it with fighters (or missiles). Once all enemy fighters have been engaged (engaged but not necessarily eliminated) that turn, then it would be free to attack the base or its surrounding units with all remaining air units of any type. Air superiority would have to be reestablished each turn. You would know when you’ve established air superiority when your fighter attack no longer causes a scramble-counter-attack. You could then attack or not if the “show odds before attack” feature is used.
If some of the surrounding units are covered by more than one base’s air cover umbrella, then each base involved must be engaged before those units could be attacked.
I’ve been thinking about this problem since I read about the partial solution to it now in use in the current ACDG, namely, choppers are not allowed to attack bases. I hope this "establishing air superiority" idea generates some discussion and if it stands up to critical analysis, I’d like to see it adapted to future PBEM’s. Hey, if nothing else, this rule will strengthen the AI since it would still be playing the old way.
Comment