View Full Version : city States & Air Units


aluelkdf
Mar 05, 2012, 08:57 AM
I would like to be able to base air units in allied city states. This would add more depth and realism to gameplay. In real life an allied city state (basically a friendly, smaller, subservient civilization) would allow an allied major civilization to base air units in their territory.

This is very imprtant because you can be allied with a city state that is very far away. You may be using that city state as a launchpad to launch an attack on another civ. Its easy to move land units into posotion, but the enemy air force may annialate your ground forces. I know you can use carriers, but realistically, an allied city state would let you use their city as a base too. This is much easier than using carriers, especially if the city state is not right on the coast. If the enemy has a strong airforce it would be nice to be able to base fighters in the city state to intercept, and bombers to soften up enemy units/cities. Also, you may not even be attacking another civ, but just using your airforce to protect the allied city state from another civ.

Also, friendly civs should allow basing of air units if there is an open borders agreement, especially if you and the friendly civ are fighting a common enemy. In real life this would happen. For example, in WWII Americam planes were based in Britain. The war may have turned out differently if this did not happen.

Maybe for city states and other civs there could be a limit per city so it's not out of balance. Maybe 3 units per city. Or maybe there is no limit, but you have to pay a certain amount of gold per tun for every unit that is based in a city that is not yours, and the gold would go to the civ that the unit is based in. But realistically, if an allied civ or city state is fighting for survival, they would not charge you to come in and help, they would welcome it.

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 05, 2012, 09:07 AM
I totally agree.

aluelkdf
Mar 05, 2012, 10:36 AM
I was thinking, it would be realistic for a civ to charge you to base air units in their city for certain things. Suppose you wanted to start a war out of pure agression and you wanted to use another civ's cities to base air units. If that civ is not allied with you and is basically just neutral, they may not have a problem with you attacking another civ. But since they are not interested in the war, and they don't particularly care for you either, then they let you use their cities but they charge you for it. Otherwise, they would have no reason to passivley help you fight your war if they don't benefit from it somehow.

But if 2 civs are allied and fighting a common enemy, then they should charge nothing. Same goes for city states too. A nuetral city state may (not always) allow you to use their city as a base if you pay them (although the payment should be exclusivley for using their city, city state influence should not increase at all for this type of payment.) But if the city state is an ally, they should let you do what you want free of charge.

I don't know how all this would be worked into the game in a way that works, but its something to think about.

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 05, 2012, 10:44 AM
I could see it being a negotiable item. Trade airbase usage for Aluminum assets or something. although in dire situations, you want your ally to use your airbases when facing a common foe, so you give access for free.

bcaiko
Mar 05, 2012, 11:57 AM
This is a realism vs. gameplay discussion. Sure, it's realistic, but gameplay-wise what you're proposing is overly-complicated.

There are already ways to manuever your aircraft outside the range of your cities: aircraft carriers. And aircraft already have a disgustingly long range as is.

While your idea is neat, I'd have to side with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

aluelkdf
Mar 05, 2012, 12:34 PM
This is a realism vs. gameplay discussion. Sure, it's realistic, but gameplay-wise what you're proposing is overly-complicated.

There are already ways to manuever your aircraft outside the range of your cities: aircraft carriers. And aircraft already have a disgustingly long range as is.

While your idea is neat, I'd have to side with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I agree that we don't want to complicate the game too much. What we have now "ain't broke", but it can be improved. We can take what I am saying and simplify it. The realsim would not be as good (though it would be improved compared to what it is now) but the gameplay would also be improved without complicating things.

To simplify my idea this is what I propose. All cities other than your own have a limit of 3 air units per city (applies to other civs and city states). You can only base units in a city state if you are allied with them. The game mechanics to ally with a city state don't change. If you lose the status of ally with a city state while units are based there, the air units automattically rebase to the closest city that is owned by you.

For other civs, they let you base air units in their city if there is an open borders agreement. In order to get an open borders agreement you need to be on good terms with the other civ anyway, so the realsim is there. You can't base planes in a civ that hates you, because you can't get open borders with them. If there is an open borders agreement, you can use another civ's territory for both land and naval comat, so why not air combat? Aircfraft carriers are more of a function of the navy, bassically a form of naval combat. True air combat should be made more realistic. If open borders expire while units are in another civ's city, then they automattically rebase to your closest city. Also, if you have open borders with a civ, they may also base air units in your cities, just as you can with theirs.

This would not change the game mechanics, but it does tweak gameplay just a little bit to add more depth and realsim. I don't see any reason why 3 air units per city can't base in friendly territory when both land and naval units can operate in frieendly territory. America has airforce bases all over the world, in territory not owned by the US. This helps the US project its power worldwide. The global dynamics in the world today would be totally different if this were not the case. There should be a simple way to approximate and represent this in civ v.

seasnake
Mar 05, 2012, 12:42 PM
I'd simplify it even further: You can base five total air units per city and you may also do so in citadels and in allied city states. Forts you can base two max. Gives you more incentive to build forts, ends the 20 air units in cities, and you have incentive to buddy up to city states near a potential enemy so your air force can be ready to strike. Also an extra reason to consider building a Key citadel because you can hold more than twice the number than a regular fort.

CivilizedPlayer
Mar 05, 2012, 01:05 PM
seasnake: agreed. With allied city-states, there's no need for any complex mechanic. Just "If you're allied, you can put x air units in their city". And I like the fort and citadel ideas. They make sense, they're simple, and I wouldn't have to use aircraft carriers for everyhing (they work, but they're still one more thing to build, pay for, and maneuver. I'd rather they're an option, not a requirement).

aluelkdf
Mar 05, 2012, 07:28 PM
seasnake: agreed. With allied city-states, there's no need for any complex mechanic. Just "If you're allied, you can put x air units in their city". And I like the fort and citadel ideas. They make sense, they're simple, and I wouldn't have to use aircraft carriers for everyhing (they work, but they're still one more thing to build, pay for, and maneuver. I'd rather they're an option, not a requirement).

I feel the same way. I like carriers, but I don't want to have to rely on them for everything. In some cases a carrier may be what is best, but not always. I think there should be a limit on air units per city. With land and naval units limited to 1 unit per hex, it just doesn't feel right having 10 air units stacked in one city. There needs to be more than 1 per city since aircraft can't go anyplace and are restricted unlike land and naval units. I'm thinking maybe 3 air units per city, or maybe 5 with an airport (hypothetical new building).

And assuming you and friendly civs can base planes in eachother's cities, each civ can still base planes in their city regardless. So basically if a friendly civ has 3 air units in your city, they did not steal all your space, you can still use your city. And if your allied civ's city is full of their planes, you can still base your planes in their city too. Otherwise it would be frustrating if you couldn't use your own cities as bases because they were being used by an ally.

Uberfrog
Mar 06, 2012, 04:38 AM
Some good ideas here. In a recent game I had to ship a couple of carriers in defense of an allied island city state, when it would've been much easier if I could just have based the planes there. I like the idea of forts as air bases: IIRC this was a simple feature in BtS that was somehow forgotten in the development of Civ V.

steave435
Mar 06, 2012, 06:35 AM
This would allow you to base planes or nukes in cities that can't be attacked by the enemy you're using the units against since they won't be at war, which is a significant advantage if your enemy has nukes that could otherwise wipe out your air force in 1 attack. If this is done, it has to come with the restriction that planes based in an another civs/sity states city can only intercept or attack units and cities belonging to a civ/city state that both you and the city you're basing out of is at war with.

aluelkdf
Mar 06, 2012, 07:15 AM
This would allow you to base planes or nukes in cities that can't be attacked by the enemy you're using the units against since they won't be at war, which is a significant advantage if your enemy has nukes that could otherwise wipe out your air force in 1 attack. If this is done, it has to come with the restriction that planes based in an another civs/sity states city can only intercept or attack units and cities belonging to a civ/city state that both you and the city you're basing out of is at war with.

Are you talking about civs basing planes in eachother's cities? If you are allied with a city state they will automatically be at war with anybody you are. I agree with your assesment though. Also, an enemy civ can attack you while being based in a different civ that is neutral. It adds depth to the game. You may need to consider invading your neighbor simply for letting an enemy civ base planes in their cities. Strategy becomes much more important. Maybe with the new espianage function, you could even damage the relationship between the two civs so that your neibor will no longer allow your enemy to base in their cities, then you don't need to invade, but you could if you wanted to.

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 06, 2012, 07:16 AM
This would allow you to base planes or nukes in cities that can't be attacked by the enemy you're using the units against since they won't be at war, which is a significant advantage if your enemy has nukes that could otherwise wipe out your air force in 1 attack. If this is done, it has to come with the restriction that planes based in an another civs/sity states city can only intercept or attack units and cities belonging to a civ/city state that both you and the city you're basing out of is at war with.

Basing forces in neutral city-states close to your enemy in order to exchange total destructive blows in the first turn of a war. That sounds like the Cuban Missile Crisis to me, and the Mutually Assured Destruction strategy too.

Louis XXIV
Mar 06, 2012, 08:23 AM
I don't think there were any neutral powers involved in the Cuban missile crisis. It's a good analogy to allied CS, though.

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 06, 2012, 08:32 AM
Well, yes. Not technically neutral. The US and the USSR tended to make all the other countries pick sides. We put missiles in Turkey, they put them in Cuba.

We have forces in many of our allies countries.

Rex_Mundi
Mar 07, 2012, 05:35 AM
If you limmit how many air units are allowed pr city (something I fully agree with) and want to place American air units in the allied English cities, then what happens when England wants to place air units in it's own city once the limmit is reached.

Does the american unit get moved to the closest open city, or closest American city?

Is the English player not able to use its own capacity?

What happens when a full city builds a new air unit?

Louis XXIV
Mar 07, 2012, 06:32 AM
You could cap it per civ per city. Maybe it'll give a stronger advantage, but I think it'll be rare enough not to matter.

aluelkdf
Mar 07, 2012, 07:47 AM
If you limmit how many air units are allowed pr city (something I fully agree with) and want to place American air units in the allied English cities, then what happens when England wants to place air units in it's own city once the limmit is reached.

Does the american unit get moved to the closest open city, or closest American city?

Is the English player not able to use its own capacity?

What happens when a full city builds a new air unit?


This is an important thing to consider. This is how I think it should work. For the sake of example let's say the limit is 5 air units per city. It might be 3 or 7 or whatever, but let's just use 5 as an example. England can place 5 air units in every city owned by them. There are still 5 slots open for another civ that has open borders. So in total there can be a maximum of 10 air units in London. So if America has 5 units in London, England can still place 5 units in London. Now let's say England has open borders with both China and America. If China already has 3 units in London, then America can only place 2 units in London. And if England has 0 units in London, this does not change, there are still only 5 slots available for other civs. And if England is the only civ using London as a base, there are still only 5 slots available to them, not 10. This way a civ always has full use of every city they own. But other civs may be limited depending on what's going on.

steave435
Mar 07, 2012, 08:15 AM
Also, an enemy civ can attack you while being based in a different civ that is neutral. It adds depth to the game. You may need to consider invading your neighbor simply for letting an enemy civ base planes in their cities.
Yeah, I'd be fine with that mechanic if it was mainly a multiplayer game, but I don't think the AI would be able to handle it. While it's true open borders could give a similar situation with a ranged unit standing on neutral ground, the scale is just completely different since the air range is so much greater. Even the 10 tile range of a jet fighter/bomber gives a significant amount of cover unlike a range 2/3 unit standing on the border, and that's not even mentioning stealth bombers or nuclear missiles.

PSPSoldier534
Mar 07, 2012, 07:17 PM
I like this system but make it so that if an allied city with your aircraft is captured by someone you are not at war with, then you get your aircraft rebased to the nearest city. And there should be no limit to the aircraft you can place in the capital, but for each new unit stationed there, there will be an increasing penalty to the combat effectiveness of all the aircraft in the city.