DESIGN: Air Combat

[Protra3211]

Your right a better way has to found.

Have not played Peters new mod yet. But from reading the forums AI use of air units was by far the best improvement to the game . Maybe design change could include his work.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Protra3211
Have not played Peters new mod yet. But from reading the forums AI use of air units was by far the best improvement to the game . Maybe design change could include his work.

The problem with Peter's work is that it is a slic work around even if the code is immense, but nevertheless it is slic code and need to be written again in c++, fortunatly the design is clear well more or less and most of the stuff he wrote as extra functions is already available in the c++ code.

-Martin

[MrBaggins]

I did play CTC, and while I thought the AI use of airpower was improved from the default game, it still wasn't concentrated or as effective as it could have been.

The fact that there was an attempt made to improve airpower in CTP2 prior to now, doesn't mean thats the best route possible.

We now have the opportunity to implement this the best possible way... we can change almost anything given the source.

Although its correct that we shouldn't automatically discard a feature because the AI doesn't know how to use it, there are a couple of points I'd like to make.

• Its easier to model effective defense and attack for the AI, given basing and missions, rather than the "regular air unit movement" system.
• The system is intuitive, and reduce micromanagement.
• The system removes an unrealistic AND exploitable situation

These combine to make the Civ3 system preferrable to even an improved standard air movement system. Given a better system, with these benefits, why shouldn't we take advantage?

Its not that the AI couldn't be programmed to make more optimal use of air units, given the old system... its just that the new system allows for optimal tactics far more often.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Here's what I'm suggesting.

A few different mission types... including strike mission, and attack mission. (along with ferry and recon)

Strike mission would work as follows

• You select a strike package. A stack of air units.
• You choose the strike action, and a target, optionally including waypoints. The strike action is only available if all selected air units have the CanBombardLand/Sea flag.
• The units move (without blocking) along the designated path, to the target, until they reach their closest bombard range. ActiveAirDefense (which hasn't triggered yet, this turn) applies to them as they move, so they can be damaged, or destroyed, on route.
• The Bombard (and Counter bombard, if a free CanBombardAir unit is amongst the defenders) occurs.
• The strike returns along the same path. Active Air Defense does not apply.

Attack mission would work as follows

• You select an attack package. A stack of air units.
• You choose the attack action, and a target, optionally including waypoints. The attack action is only available if all selected air units have the CanAttackLand/Sea flag.
• The units move (without blocking) along the designated path, to the target, until they reach their target. ActiveAirDefense (which hasn't triggered yet, this turn) applies to them as they move, so they can be damaged, or destroyed, on route.
• An attack occurs, with the air units as aggressors and the targets units as defenders, using standard fight to the death rules.
• The attack returns along the same path. Active Air Defense does not apply.

What I meant was, how do you explain the difference in "real" terms - IRL how do they differ?

[MrBaggins]

Air Bombarding would be aircraft using weapon systems at optimal defensive distance... using standoff weapons... bombing from altitude, outside small arms/AAA range, and so on.

Air Attack would be aircraft engaging the enemy closely... attack helos for example... earlier fighters and attack aircraft straffing, and so on.

[Pedrunn]

The civ3 system is better and more realistic indeed.
But I rather merge Attack mission and Strike mission. By making all air combat done as if it was a Strike mission but if the stack meets any air unit in the target tile it behaves as a Attack Mission first.
This way will saves us from having a pointless choice of attack missions types.

[kaigun]

Sorry but the Civ 3 air system is also totally bizarre and unrealistic.That it is better than the present CTP system isnt a recommendation.If you want an air system that works and is fairly realistic I suggest you adapt the model used by Paradox in its WW2 hame HoI it works the scale is similar the AI uses it well and its flexible.

[MrBaggins]

Uh? Never played... seen... or even heard of it. Link?

[Gilgamensch]

I must say, I don't like any of the suggestions (including what is existing).

Can't we just implement that the Computer is calculating while you move the plane, when it is time to return and return the plane?

So in other words: If you have fuel for 2 turns, after 1 turn (if not closer to city) return to closest city/base?

[MrBaggins]

That would help with fuel... but theres much more to it, than just not crashing, that needs to be fixed about the air power system in CTP2.

[Gilgamensch]

OK agreed......

The AI stacking planes with ground units doesn't make sense at all.

But if they would be forcefully returned it might already help.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by kaigun
Sorry but the Civ 3 air system is also totally bizarre and unrealistic.That it is better than the present CTP system isnt a recommendation.If you want an air system that works and is fairly realistic I suggest you adapt the model used by Paradox in its WW2 hame HoI it works the scale is similar the AI uses it well and its flexible.

Explain the bizarre and unrealistic aspects of it, please...

[tyrantpimp]

Hearts of Iron

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/heartsofiron.asp

Its built on the europa universalis engine, i actually own a copy of it but i have never been tempted to play it to completion.

[KHOMAR]

could it be exploitable in game (micromanagement question) different type of bombing like napalm,conventionnal bombs,Fuel-Air-Explosives,with the associated units and each with a specific effect against population,buildings,etc...

[Tamerlin]

The real pleasures with CtP2 are the perfect balance between Macro and Micromanagement and the fact it is a grand strategy game.

IMO, your idea would add more micromanagement and would add a very precise distinction between bomb types where the scale is Strategic.

You guide your people, you engage your country into wars, you manage whole fronts and move mighty armies, you define the objectives... and when the time has come your words are back with nuclear weapons.

You are a busy man, let the generals decide by themselves the bombs that must be used to weaken the defense of the city you have ordered the capture.