I've finished a first rough design of the Air Force line in my mod, and would like your feedback on it.

At first, I thought I could use real world values for relative range, and finally decided against it as it would mean sometime WWII fighter with a greater range than jet, and also to keep it more balance.



Here are the lines of Aircraft, for each Attack/defense/Range/Bombard/ROF
- Fighters : better attack than defense, poor bombard, cannot load into aircraft carrier
- Naval fighter: weaker than fighter, but can load into aicraft carrier

- Fighter bomber: attack just a bit better than defense, medium bombard cannot load into aircraft carrier
A special Attack aircraft (A10 for instance) has an increase defense and has lethal land bombardment, but has a very weak attack and short range.
The latest fighter bomber can use precision bombing

- Naval fighter bomber: same as above, but weaker and can load into aircraft carrier. And they all have lethal sea bombardment

- Bombers: no attack, large range, high bombard rating. The heavy bomber can transport tactical missile (i.e. WWII nuke). Cannot be loaded in carrier

- Naval bomber: can be loaded on carrier, similar to medium bomber

- Stealth aircrafts: very expensive, but more powerful. Note I've set the intercept change to 75% with stealth, and 10% with.

- Transport: can carry units, same has helicopter in Conquest, except they are not limited to foot unit.

- Recon plane: very large range, can do only recon mission.

These are the "base" unit lines, for most civilizations only some of the aircraft will be available.

Very elaborate and interesting :)

No one else has any comment?

Is it so perfect you are all speechless ? :eek:

Or so bad you don't want to hurt me and won't tell?

perhaps you are interested in the airforces of my upcoming mod. this chart includes also each civilization specific units. :rolleyes:

It would have easier to understand if it was written in a civilized language ;)

Why are you using such a high value for attack and defense?

Gee, Steph, i`d understand your comment if your chart was written in french :p

But you`re right. Taube, I have no idea what I`m looking at :)

With so many numbers and planes it's hard to get a good view of how well it's balanced. Whatever happened to 4-5 airplanes for each civ? ;)

It would have easier to understand if it was written in a civilized language ;)

Why are you using such a high value for attack and defense?

German is probably the most civilized language on earth! Only Latin and Greek may be more civilized than German. :p

Well, I did study the language of the Barbarian up to the North East, in case they try to invade us again, but it was a long time ago.

Enough to understand most of it, but not all the details

With so many numbers and planes it's hard to get a good view of how well it's balanced. Whatever happened to 4-5 airplanes for each civ? ;)
They were 4-5 airplanes for each civ at first, but some were males, other were females, and they got at it like Rabbit!
Seriously, when I see the beautiful productions of Wyrmshadow, it would be a pity not to include more.
But only a few civilizations will really have many aircraft, for other civ it will be simplified.
About the balancing, alpha test and beta test will tell. I'm more interesting on remark about the interest of the different unit lines


German is probably the most civilized language on earth! Only Latin and Greek may be more civilized than German. :p
What? French is ZE language of civilization and culture!

Coughing and spitting doesn`t exactly scream "civilization and culture"!

You people are forgetting the chinese and so on ;)

What? French is ZE language of civilization and culture!

Yeah that's what the French seem to think. ;):p

It would have easier to understand if it was written in a civilized language ;)


i know german isn't very easy to learn, but it's very interessing and CIVILIZED language :lol:
only one word: jägermeister, well know around the world :D :D :D

Why are you using such a high value for attack and defense?

i hope that these values guarantee that no wwI plane (zweidecker or biplane) shot down a early jet fighter (düsenjäger).

With so many numbers and planes it's hard to get a good view of how well it's balanced. Whatever happened to 4-5 airplanes for each civ? ;)

i think that's more realistic when americans use the f-86 or our french friends uses a mirage. these extra units replaces the generic ones. unfortunately only some nations (usa,su,gb,fr,ge,sw) produces nameable aircrafts. it would be very nice to get more generic unit from the "c&c diva".wyrmshadows units are really incredible. i hope that he gives me the okay to release this units in a edit form (removed markings, palettes fixes, ...).

Leibniz (who virtually invented the field of historical linguistics) thought that German (or a close relative) was the Adamic language, the hypothetical language of the first human beings, from which all other languages developed. However, he did argue his case for this view in a book he wrote in French, thereby accidentally proving that whatever exalted status German might once have had, it had lost it by then.

That, however, is neither here nor there. To the topic: what does the AI do when faced with so many different classes of aircraft? Would it understand the necessity of building naval bombers in addition to the normal kind, for example?

Hey, I DID study German for 4 years you know!

I want to do the same, but if we compare our two approaches:
- Your Zweidecker has an attack of 18, defense of 12. The F86 Sabre has 50-36. The Eurofigther Typhoon as 92-72
So it means the Zweidecker would win about 25% of the time against F86, and the F86 about 30% of the time against the Typhoon. The Zweidecker would win 15% of the time against a Typhoon.

- In my system, the biplane is 1/1, the jet fighter 7/3, the interceptor 9/4. So a biplane wins 1/8 against jet fighter, and 1/10 against interceptor.

I mean, why use 18/12 for the Zweidecker and not start directly with 4/3 ? You would achive the same result by dividing everything by 6, wouldn't you?


@Plotinus: I honestly don't know if the AI will build the different kind of aircraft, that's why I make them roughly similar. They are here more for flavour than anything else, and I hope being relatively equal, the AI can randomly pick between them.

I honestly don't know if the AI will build the different kind of aircraft, that's why I make them roughly similar. They are here more for flavour than anything else, and I hope being relatively equal, the AI can randomly pick between them.
Mostl likely the AI would everything in the stats and flsgs are exactly alike. I'm curious why you have the biplane marked as not able to load. The first expeeriments with carrier aviation used biplanes.

Because there is a "Naval bomber", era 10, which is the naval version of the biplane

Ok I was wondering why you had a Naval FB with the same low stats of the biplane. The only other thing I can think of looking over those stats is the aircraft will really take a pounding from AA with stats that low.

The stats are not that lower than in Conquest I think.

And if I read correctly somewhere else, a unit with an AA of 20 has an actual strenght of 2 (1/10 of the AA strength), so they should not be that dangerous.
Except if I misunderstood something of course?

@ steph: are your "fighter bombers" able to fly a "Air Superiority Mission"?

@ steph: are your "fighter bombers" able to fly a "Air Superiority Mission"?
It depends, it varies with each civilizations, but normally yes.

No one else has any comment?

Is it so perfect you are all speechless ? :eek:

Or so bad you don't want to hurt me and won't tell?

I like them.

i see some discrepencies w/ your stats Steph.

first off, ranges for jet aircraft, especially the first generations of them, and irregardless of map size, are pretty far off. consider that a Gloster Meteor had an approximate range of 600 miles. contrarily, a P-51 could have a combat range as high as 1,600 miles. so if you want to simulate the advances of the aircraft industry, you're going to have to modify the ranges of the aircraft to reflect this overlapping period in aviation history.

i also see some problems w/ some of the A/D vlaues you've plugged in for the fighters and f/b's. how can you have an early prop driven fighter w/ the same attack value as a ww2 era f/b? not only is this historically inaccurate, it will confuse the AI. i would suggest that you review the A/D values and implement a more concise format to differentiate, for the AI's sake, the different aircraft classes.

additionally, you asked taube why his stats were so high. conversely, i ask you why your stats are so low? i know that it's different strokes for different folks. but i had to ask.

recon-only planes are useless. the AI won't build them. i would suggest you give the recon feature to certain fighter aircraft instead.

as for the naval aircraft - you're going to have to have them autopro'd b/c if you don't, you'll further confuse the AI or worse, make these naval planes not worth building. this includes the carrier-based ones as well as the torpedo bombers.

my experiences w/ all of this suggests that you try and make it as simplistic as possible for both the AI and the human player in terms of which units appear in the build ques. by that i mean that it's not necessarily a matter of scaling back on the total amount of units w/in a particular unit line. you could have a new unit in there for each new tech if you wanted. however, the point i'm trying to make is that if you set it up as vanilla as you possibly can (ie. a fighter type unit and a bomber/attack type one and the others autopr'd) then you will have some pretty decent AI behavior in terms of builds and amounts of units etc etc.

the costs for your units are too low imo also. i say that b/'c if your mod starts off in the ancient era, the production rates of the cities will be relatively high at the point of the game in which the air units become available. i would consider giving the entire cost column for the air units a boost of x2 or x3 or even higher b/c cities will be cranking out air units in only a turn or 2 and the slight variances you have for them will be non-existant in game terms.

Interesting remarks.


first off, ranges for jet aircraft, especially the first generations of them, and irregardless of map size, are pretty far off. consider that a Gloster Meteor had an approximate range of 600 miles. contrarily, a P-51 could have a combat range as high as 1,600 miles. so if you want to simulate the advances of the aircraft industry, you're going to have to modify the ranges of the aircraft to reflect this overlapping period in aviation history.

Agreed, but even for modern fighter the operational range is not that high, so as I said in the OP, I decided to increase the range so the upgrade would be more interesting, rather than reducing it to make it complelty accurate. Perhaps not the best choice.


i also see some problems w/ some of the A/D vlaues you've plugged in for the fighters and f/b's. how can you have an early prop driven fighter w/ the same attack value as a ww2 era f/b? not only is this historically inaccurate, it will confuse the AI. i would suggest that you review the A/D values and implement a more concise format to differentiate, for the AI's sake, the different aircraft classes.

I'll check that and answer later, when I have my Excel spreadsheet with me.


additionally, you asked taube why his stats were so high. conversely, i ask you why your stats are so low? i know that it's different strokes for different folks. but i had to ask.

I just started with the biplane at 1/1, and then went up from there


recon-only planes are useless. the AI won't build them. i would suggest you give the recon feature to certain fighter aircraft instead.

Recon only plane are flavour units, mostly for the player. Other planes will have the recon feature to.


as for the naval aircraft - you're going to have to have them autopro'd b/c if you don't, you'll further confuse the AI or worse, make these naval planes not worth building. this includes the carrier-based ones as well as the torpedo bombers.

Hmm... If two planes have exactly the same stats, will the computer build a mix of them.


my experiences w/ all of this suggests that you try and make it as simplistic as possible for both the AI and the human player in terms of which units appear in the build ques. by that i mean that it's not necessarily a matter of scaling back on the total amount of units w/in a particular unit line. you could have a new unit in there for each new tech if you wanted. however, the point i'm trying to make is that if you set it up as vanilla as you possibly can (ie. a fighter type unit and a bomber/attack type one and the others autopr'd) then you will have some pretty decent AI behavior in terms of builds and amounts of units etc etc.

Auto production is out of the equation. To many units for to many civs. So I have to find a way to make it work without



the costs for your units are too low imo also. i say that b/'c if your mod starts off in the ancient era, the production rates of the cities will be relatively high at the point of the game in which the air units become available. i would consider giving the entire cost column for the air units a boost of x2 or x3 or even higher b/c cities will be cranking out air units in only a turn or 2 and the slight variances you have for them will be non-existant in game terms.

That may require increasing the cost of all the units I'm afraid :(.
Alpha tests and beta tests will tell by how much it has to be increased, I'll try to finish it first.

i'd recommend that you try and determine the squar miles/km of each tile on the map that you're using and go from there in terms of aircraft ranges. once you've got that de facto template, it is much easier.

wrt to your question about two units having the same exact stats and costs - i don't know. i mean, i've never put the AI into a spot where this would be answered. iow, i make sure to differentiate the stats so as to actaully avoid this quandary.

i hate to tell you but trying to find another way for the AI to build those specialized aircraft (ie. CV planes and TBs) isn't possible. i mean, it could be done. however, you'd be compromising the stats and/or the gameplay imo. as i noted, "dumbing" the AI down is rule no.1 imo. and that means giving it clear cut and black and white build choices (ie a fighter/interceptor for defense and a bomber/attacker for offense). once you start throwing other buildable units into the mix, you will invariably get back mixed results that are typically not too positive. therefore, the easiest way, for me at least, is to have them spawned by buildings every so many turns. if this seems like too many units for a particular unit line then that's fine. however, be leery about allowing for these types of units to be built b/c you will not get the results from the AI that you had wished for.

after going through thousands and thousands of turns of testing of my own files, i can state w/out almost absolute clarity that you will indeed run into production/shield issues w/ costs for units that low. and i say this based off of normal production rates (ie. not accelerated prod). so if you have, say, a unit that costs 40 shields to build in one of the later eras, this will not differ much from a unit that costs, say, 75 shields. this is assuming that certain cities will be producing in excess of 75 shields/turn. so what you'll be getting is one turn builds all over the place.

i think that you're heading in the right direction w/ the stats and flags and all. but you need to differentiate the unit stats more i think and be sure that you don't have those 1 turn builds across the board that late in the game.

Ok

Then I will increase the attack / defense rating of the fighter, to make them more efficient at countering ennemy plane, have the bombers weaker with good bombard, and FB average between that.

I don't know how to "force" the AI to make naval version of the plane.

The human player will no doubt build them, as they are the only one to be loadable. And I don't want to have the naval better than the land based, or they will be build only.

About the cost, It hink the best way is to finish the American civilization, and make a new release for test, so I can try full game, including later navy and aircraft, and see how to increase if necessary.

However, during WWII thousands of aircraft were build in only 4 years, and a game turn is 1 year at the end.

So I'm not sure having new units build in 1 or 2 turns is really bad.

About the range, I could use something like
1 tile = 300 km of range.

I'll update my aircraft list and post it for a second run of feedback

Thanks all for your reply

Steph also name as many generic units as possible. So you can give for example Scandinavia Me 109 and Greece P 51 instead of generic ones. Also you can do that for historical fictive or only prototype planes. So Germany might have Heinkel HD 23 fighters for carrier use in the 1920s while the Brits have Fairey Flycatcher. So you can very well avoid the use of generic fighter bomber and so on.
That's at least the way I do it for my AoI II mod. It works well.

Adler

Steph also name as many generic units as possible. So you can give for example Scandinavia Me 109 and Greece P 51 instead of generic ones. Also you can do that for historical fictive or only prototype planes. So Germany might have Heinkel HD 23 fighters for carrier use in the 1920s while the Brits have Fairey Flycatcher. So you can very well avoid the use of generic fighter bomber and so on.
That's at least the way I do it for my AoI II mod. It works well.
Adler
There is NO generic unit in my mod, and there won't be many prototype, I will stick with "major" aircraft, even then there are too many to chose from

HEre is an update of the unit lines

If I understood you right, you replace these units, fighter biplane for example with a Fokker D.VII for Germany and a Sopwith Camel for the Brits. That's okay. However for some you have to think about prototype units. For example Germany had only a few Fi 167 carrier torpedo bomber built. Or the Russians, who had no carrier planes until the 1970s. So you might have to take hypothetical navalised versions of planes. So for example a navalised Il 2 Sturmovik.
Oh and all planes should have lethal sea bombardment. As well as all fighters should have a bombardment ability to attack enemy fighters defending a city.

Adler

If I understood you right, you replace these units, fighter biplane for example with a Fokker D.VII for Germany and a Sopwith Camel for the Brits. That's okay. However for some you have to think about prototype units. For example Germany had only a few Fi 167 carrier torpedo bomber built. Or the Russians, who had no carrier planes until the 1970s. So you might have to take hypothetical navalised versions of planes. So for example a navalised Il 2 Sturmovik.
Oh and all planes should have lethal sea bombardment. As well as all fighters should have a bombardment ability to attack enemy fighters defending a city.
Adler
About prototype: I do use "fictional navalized" version, if no other is available, but I don't use prototype is something is available.

Like for instance, in Wyrmshadow planes, I will use the Naval Stuka, but not the different kind of "single wing bombers".

Good remark for the bombard, I'll give at least 1 bombard so you can attack ennemy figthers defending cities.

BTW most fighters were also used as fighter bombers. Also all planes should have lethal sea bombardment.

Adler

You me doubt for a moment!

All my planes have a bombardment rating, except pure recon or transport plane.

Beside.... Do you think a B52 flying at very high altitude is the best type of plane to destroy a ship?

I prefer to keep lethal naval bombardment to aircrafts that are more likely to attack ships.

I could add it to the land base fighter bomber, but not to the bomber.

Can you edit how much fog of war a plane can uncover? If not, can you let a plane have two or more turns uncovering fog of war?

I don't know... Does the Radar flag has some effects on recon mission?

I don't know... Does the Radar flag has some effects on recon mission?
no, that just affects the tiles in which the immobile air unit is resting - or more specifically, it's most practical use is for the sea units so that it can see that extra range of tiles.

A B 52 hitting a badly damaged ship can sink it with the last of 100 bombs dropped like an old biplane with a small bomb hitting it decisively. Also B 52 are using guided bombs :p.
One example: USS Meredith II, a US Sumner class destroyer, was hit by an SBoat torpedo near the Normandie. The ship was extensively damaged but was kept over water. The ship was the next day target of a Luftwaffe plane, which only nearly missed her. But this near miss broke the back of the ship finishing it by breaking her back. So also a small bomb should have been enough to sink her. That's why all planes should get lethal sea bombardment. The same has to be said for artillery, too.

Adler

That's a case where I consider gameplay should be consider before historical realism.
Of course any ship could be destroyed by a small bomb, then every unit with bombardment should have lethal bombardment.
And then you can have tactics like a fast destroyer coming near a battleship and bombing it to finish it without any risk...

So I prefer leave the lethal naval to a few specific units, to force the surface ship to engage in real combat, where there's a chance they are damaged.

Steph I have t0o agree with you, gameplay sometimes is more important than historical accuracy.

about range: the most modern aircraft can be refueled. i did that for my planes. by increasing their range, but also cahangerd their unit cost accordingly. (it's just stupid if an f-16 based in pakistan can't reach afghanistan)

this is how i calculate unit stats (only for fighters until now)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=149676&d=1173789023

however there are some problems with it. but for me it's a good start

I can´t say against El Justo on testing the AI on the problem on building landbased contra navalbased fighters and bombers, BUT
if not a special building that will pop out a naval fighter or torpedobomber every so so turn, THEN what about the AI's thought on having a stronger fighter and divebomber (attack and bombload) for landbased BUT shorter range than the navalbased.

I think this is what I will try.
The landbased fighter is better in attack but shorter range
The navalbased fighter is a litle weaker in attack but has longer range.
same of course for dive-bomber/fighterbomber contra torpedo bombers.
Then of course the naval version have lethal seabombardment as an extra.

The question remains if the AI will build the navalbased weaker units with longer range, OR the stronger unit with tougher stuff.

This issue just must be handled and the result good enough. Too much difference between fine land-based aircrafts and navalbased aircrafts both in WW2 and modern times. Then with sooo many fine aircraft models from Wyrmshadow and others the problem must be solved. We got to have modern F-15 and F-16 planes together with F-14 and F-18.

However I agree that very few nations do have carriers and special planes in the real world, so generic planes must be an issue or just figure out what kind of version this or that country have decided to buy.
An example should be Scandinavia, no carriers but Finland I do believe have the F-18 Hornet and the F-4 Phantom has been used in many many countries. A little work on the internet can get decent navalaircrafts for most countries I think.

That´s my two pennies so far Steph. Hope somthing could be helpful.

Cemo

This file can't be DL.

URL /CivMod/Files/StephMod_Update_2007_02_25.zip

anything that I should be worried about ????

Cemo

?? The file is no longer there :confused:

It seems I uploaded the folder instead of the zip :blush:

Anyway, I'll upload a new update when the American AF is ready, expect it for next week if everything goes well

That's a case where I consider gameplay should be consider before historical realism.
Of course any ship could be destroyed by a small bomb, then every unit with bombardment should have lethal bombardment.
And then you can have tactics like a fast destroyer coming near a battleship and bombing it to finish it without any risk...

So I prefer leave the lethal naval to a few specific units, to force the surface ship to engage in real combat, where there's a chance they are damaged.

Steph, but that's just the way it should work. DD should have a high RoF while low bombardment and BB a high bombardment, but a low RoF. So yes with the bombing you can simulate massive torpedo attacks by the DD. On this way especially the US against Japan and the British against the Germans had severe losses. You have only to give the DD not the ability to sink an entire BB at once. Thus you should keep the HP of the BB over the RoF of the DD. But if you follow El J's principle, 1 HP= 2.500 ts displacement you won't get the problems when building a 35.000 ts ship (14 HP), as a DD would have let's say 8 RoF (considering the ship has 8 torpedo tubes). Then you need three to five DD to sink a BB. And that should be quite realistic. At least on this way AoI II works.

Adler

Steph, but that's just the way it should work. DD should have a high RoF while low bombardment and BB a high bombardment, but a low RoF. So yes with the bombing you can simulate massive torpedo attacks by the DD. On this way especially the US against Japan and the British against the Germans had severe losses. You have only to give the DD not the ability to sink an entire BB at once. Thus you should keep the HP of the BB over the RoF of the DD. But if you follow El J's principle, 1 HP= 2.500 ts displacement you won't get the problems when building a 35.000 ts ship (14 HP), as a DD would have let's say 8 RoF (considering the ship has 8 torpedo tubes). Then you need three to five DD to sink a BB. And that should be quite realistic. At least on this way AoI II works.

Adler
I don't agree. The problem with civ model is you can find ennemy ships, move close, bombard with your own ships, and possibly withdraw, and the ennemy cannot fire back at all.
I find it completly unreallistic with ships. The DD, to come close to the BB, have to come in range and have to pass the BB fire before they can use torpedos.

Such "hit and run" tactics should be IMHO reserved to airborne attack.

If the battle model of civ was different, I would agree, but here I don't like it.

In SSS, it will probably be quite different :)

This problem is not very much occuring. Indeed it only seldomly appeared in AoI I. For AoI II I admit I have not yet too many tests.

Adler

This problem is not very much occuring. Indeed it only seldomly appeared in AoI I. For AoI II I admit I have not yet too many tests.

Adler

You mean, the AI doesn't use it? But the human player could, for great effect, I'm afraid it may create a kind of exploit

A question: Is there a way to have the aircraft able to detect submarines in recon mission?

I tried to place a submarine near a battleship, and make a recon mission with two aircraft, one with "Detect invisible flag", the other without.

None detected the submarine.

I have run across that same problem Steph and I am not sure if there is an answer. You would think with the detect invisible flag all invisible units would be detected.

radar maybe?

No effect either

I fear it must be something hardcoded in that only naval units can spot invisible naval units.

I fear it must be something hardcoded in that only naval units can spot invisible naval units.
Hardcoded? In civ? You got to be kidding!:mischief:

Here's the result

http://stephane.f.david.free.fr/CivMod/Images/UsAirForce.jpg

Hardcoded? In civ? You got to be kidding!:mischief:
You joker you. That latest shot looks impressive.

Steph,
I like the variety you're building into these air unit lines.:goodjob:

How are you going to make certain planes loadable onto carriers and other not? Are you disabling rebase or load?

Steph,
I like the variety you're building into these air unit lines.:goodjob:

How are you going to make certain planes loadable onto carriers and other not? Are you disabling rebase or load?
No. It's a secret.

But if you make me a few units for the next civilizations I will do (I'd need a fusilier marin for France marines, and a modern British soldiers), I'll tell you my secret.:D

French fusilier marin below: it turned out a bit to dark with the scanner, the blue should be a tad lighter.

A question. When reading the excellent post from Wolfhart about armies, he said if aircrafs are loaded into an army, they get +1MP and if the army has blitz, then they can make several air missions.

So, does it means that if we give several MP to an aircraft, and Blitz, it can make several air missions?

A question. When reading the excellent post from Wolfhart about armies, he said if aircrafs are loaded into an army, they get +1MP and if the army has blitz, then they can make several air missions.

So, does it means that if we give several MP to an aircraft, and Blitz, it can make several air missions?That's correct. If you give an aircraft more than one MP and Blitz, it may do several bombing missions the same turn, or several rebasing missions. I haven't really tested interception-blitz, but it should work for that also. Reconnaissance spend all remaining movement points so that you should do as the last mission. Without the Blitz ability aircrafts may do one combat mission together with rebasing (before or after) or recon (after).

And thank you :)

That's correct. If you give an aircraft more than one MP and Blitz, it may do several bombing missions the same turn, or several rebasing missions. I haven't really tested interception-blitz, but it should work for that also. Reconnaissance spend all remaining movement points so that you should do as the last mission. Without the Blitz ability aircrafts may do one combat mission together with rebasing (before or after) or recon (after).
And thank you :)
Interesting finding... So we could imagine long range bomber with only one mission, high ROF (lots of bomb) far away, and short range fighter bombers with 2MP and blitz, but no ROF.

Cool now you can make that radar plane with spinning disk and have its advantage being two turns of revealing fog of war. Before this kind of special recon plane had no use cus any plane could reveal terrain or attack so why build it?

Has another bit of progress been made in the hard stuggle to improve Civ3? I really don't know cuz I never understood the terms ya'll used :undecide: :)

I haven't really tested interception-blitz, but it should work for that also. Now I have tested interceptors with several movement points and blitz, but that combo does not give any extra interceptions. Interception works like reconnaissance: ordering an aircraft to do this spends all its remaining movement points. It will only intercept once, blitz or not, and no matter how many movement points it has. It's like the old Sentry mission in Civ2; it's on sentry duty and intercepting a bomber wakes it, after that it's not on sentry duty anymore. When it's your turn after an interception you have to order it back on interception mission again.

BTW a helicopter with several movement points can make one airdrop for each movement point, no blitz needed.

No RoF means also no damage. Be aware of that!

Adler

No RoF means also no damage. Be aware of that!

Adler
When I said no ROF, I meant no multile ROF, so 1
Something like Bomber : ROF 2, but one MP
Fighter Bomber: ROF 1, but 2 MP and Blitz.
So the bomber can make a lot of damage to one unit, while the fighter bomber are more flexible.

Now I have tested interceptors with several movement points and blitz, but that combo does not give any extra interceptions. Interception works like reconnaissance: ordering an aircraft to do this spends all its remaining movement points. It will only intercept once, blitz or not, and no matter how many movement points it has. It's like the old Sentry mission in Civ2; it's on sentry duty and intercepting a bomber wakes it, after that it's not on sentry duty anymore. When it's your turn after an interception you have to order it back on interception mission again.

BTW a helicopter with several movement points can make one airdrop for each movement point, no blitz needed.

Sorry for waking up an old thread, BUT this issue is probably a "problem".
If not please direct me to the solution after I have been gone for a very long time.

The mp2 works fine. I tried it on the Swordfishs in Global WW2 scenario and the ole fishes attacked twice.

Perhaps this could be something tried out on a bigger scale.
Thinking on those FighterBomber, Steph. If they have lesser bombload (as in RL) than those long-range bombers, but can make two sorties perhaps the AI are tempting to build some.

Messing around with this Blitz flag and MP2 would be interresting.
My hopes are that indeed the AI will make efforts to build a little more than the very thin line of aircrafts.
Fighter - Jetfighter
Bombers - Stealth Bombers
all to land on carriers. THAT IS SICK.

A tech-line for both land and naval aircraft MUST be worked out so that the AI are using the Carriers and proper aircrafts for them.
And naturally we need that fighter/attack/dive bomber line, with perhaps some mix of torpedobombers.
Lets face it Stukas, P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and A-10 Hogs should just be in the game as FB/attack aircrafts.

Sadly I have found out that Stealth Attacks from aircrafts doesn´t work so that flag can not help the AI to decide what to build and how to use it.

Since it´s a long time this thread halted I might be bold and get whatever guys have found out to fix this problem....

Digging round in my copious Civ notes, I found the following:

"I found giving the aircraft "transports only aircraft" and "load only foot units" abilities and unchecking the "load" special action worked great in preventing them from being loaded on to carriers." (source unknown)

I've not tested this myself.

Best,

Oz

Digging round in my copious Civ notes, I found the following:

"I found giving the aircraft "transports only aircraft" and "load only foot units" abilities and unchecking the "load" special action worked great in preventing them from being loaded on to carriers." (source unknown)

I've not tested this myself.

Best,

Oz

Yes this is most surely correct Oz...
What is the bigger issue is how the AI looks at this. Having TWO developments lines of fighters and dive/attack/fighter-bombers that in more than the issue of being able to land on carriers will be difficult for the AI to solve.

I read somewhere that perhaps one of the lines, lets say carrierlines, should be sprung from buildings. This way the AI will hopefully build the houses and then get the "weaker" line fitting to land on carriers. Getting the AI to actually use carriers and those auto produced aircrafts might be hard too.

I think I read that El Justo even had problem with Cold War aircrafts getting re-based off his carriers as soon as one started the scenario.

Artillery and Carriers seams to be a hard nut to crack for the AI in Civ3.

I don't understand... why not just uncheck the Load Special Action for Aircraft, this makes them not able to land on carriers. AI then can't load these aircraft on carriers either, at least I've not seen it be able to.

Tom

Can't you rebase them?