Aircraft in Civ

Honestly I think that the best way to increase air unit effectiveness is to add the concept of supplies and logistics and allow them to disrupt supply lines. Also to give them the missions I mentioned before, but we know how you feel about that already.

Something along these lines would be best, IMO. One idea that I remembered being mooted a while ago was for an air layer to the map, through which trade routes and supply lines could go in modern times (assuming a supply system and a more sophisticated trade system are put in place). Aircraft would therefore be important in cutting off supplies or preventing trade, and you could control various air tiles, restricting the possible supply paths for enemies. I think this type of thing would be a much better way of representing aircraft's importance to modern warfare than a diversification and complication of their combat options, which would not necessarily increase their power.
 
There are plenty of games out there that allow you to mix strategy and tactics. The Total War series comes to mind. In Rome Total War, for example, you have the option of going onto the battlefield to fight your battles (i.e. you can descend into tactics) or you can "roll the dice" and get an instant outcome for your battle.

I do not think Civ should go down this path... It is complicated enough as it is!

Personally, I am kind of OK with aircraft in civ but perhaps there should be some extra options in the kinds of attacks available. Certainly, going for Air Superiority (clearing the skies of enemy planes via destruction of airfields and shooting down of fighters over an Enemy City) would be nice. Being able to escort Bombers with Fighters (when in range) would be nice. And Strategic Bombing (targeting Ironworks/Factories) in a city would be nice. These could be added to the existing interface for controlling Aircraft attacks without too much bother perhaps?

My 2c...
 
It seems that people get got in arguments that present false dilemma’s far too often. There is no reason to argue that increasing the level of tactical options available to aircraft necessarily compromises the larger emphasis on empire building. This isn’t an 'either, or' scenario.

For example, even vanilla CIV allows a player to choose using aircraft to bomb tile improvements, bombard city defenses, or attack units. Would it be reasonable to argue that these vanilla choices come at the cost of less strategic-empire-building choices? I would argue not.

Presently, mods allow aircraft to do a variety of things as previous posts have stated. In all likelihood, those options will be incorporated into CIV5 – and that would be for the best IMO because giving the player more tactical options, with regard to air units, has the additional benefit of offering the player more flexibility in devising strategies to gain a desired advantage over his enemy.

IMO it is possible to evolve both the tactical and strategic elements of the game in ways that make sense while still maintaining CIV’s emphasis on macro-level empire building.
 
This isn’t an 'either, or' scenario.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If you are greatly expanding one small more tactical military aspect of the game, though, there will be some sort of opportunity cost involved. The resources spent creating that element could be better spent elsewhere.

Or if we follow the logic that there isn't an 'either, or' situation, why don't we include every single suggested idea in the game?

IMO it is possible to evolve both the tactical and strategic elements of the game in ways that make sense while still maintaining CIV’s emphasis on macro-level empire building.

But developing the tactical elements will not be a good thing for a strategy game. Any tactical element in the game takes away from the focus of strategy. So minimising tactical elements whilst still making the game enjoyable is rather crucial.
 
The argument that “ANY” tactical element in the game takes away from the focus of strategy is ridiculous on the face. If this were true, then the best strategic game, by being most focused on strategic gameplay, would be devoid of “any” tactical elements whatsoever. I guess RISK would qualify as the greatest strategic game ever invented. That is clearly absurd.

To say that BOTH tactical and strategic elements of gameplay are worthy of discussion and development is not the same as arguing that EVERY idea should be included. This thread is a forum for people to express and exchange their ideas in order to discuss the value of those ideas. Not every idea stands the test of time, but there are some ideas (some already implemented) that are worth being tested and possibly implemented into the core game.

The beauty of an open source game is that a lot of game development can be accomplished by the community of players that creates and implements new ideas into mods, which becomes the testing grounds for the idea. This is accomplished according to the preferences of individuals or groups without requiring any official action from the parent company. So, the issue really isn’t one of allocating resources or “opportunity cost,” because there is no lost opportunity so long as the game remains open to modding. Presently, modders have already accomplished the task of offering increased tactical options for aircraft without hindering any other efforts as to game development.

So, really, in this case, the only issue is whether or not, moving forward, certain mods that expand tactical aspects for aircraft ought to be incorporated into the core game. I personally play the mod RevolutionDCM, and IMO the increased tactics for aircraft makes practical sense, contributes to the larger strategic aspects of the game, and does not unbalance gameplay. IMO, future versions of vanilla CIV would benefit from these added tactical options and I know that many people agree, or would agree if they had an opportunity to test the increased options.

It is unfortunate that some people view tactics and strategy as mutually exclusive & seemingly as a zero-sum game. My interest in this thread is to read about other peoples’ ideas re: aircraft and aircombat, not to engage in a silly back-and-forth about the horrors of tactical options. I think Camikaze has made his point – now let the discussion move forward.
 
Well, tactics all do take away from the focus of strategy. Although that is not a bad thing to a point. It is bad to the degree where they become dominant over strategic elements, however. I'm all for mods implementing every idea, good or bad, that is suggested here, but for Vanilla Civ? No.

Now to get back to aircraft. What is there real deficiency in Civ 4? Is it their relative weakness? Well, to a degree, but not really. They are game breakingly overpowered if you are the only one to have them, so increasing their strength would only serve to make this worse. Perhaps more of a problem, as seen by complaints in this thread, is their inability to do anything other than bomb defences and units, and intercept. So what can be done to fix this? Diversify their role. Don't increase your abilities to use them within the situations in which you can already use them. Add more options for them. For example, create an air layer and implement a supply system, so that your control of the air layer via planes is important. This is the type of thing that is needed for improvement in the aircraft sector, not a complication of their existing role.
 
Enemy flying unit attacks you-->you shoot back
That's usually called combat. I want some sort of direct engagement between ground and air units.

I don't want to return to Civ 2, thanks very much.

The rest of what you said is very intriguing though :)
 
I don't want another 'gunship' thing. It would be very unrealistik and frustrating if my jet fighter got defeated by a spearman. Aircraft should be used to support land units, not supplement them.
Very unrealistic... the flag enabling ground-to-air combat would be for both parties, so that melee units wouldn't be capable of hitting back. They'd just get chopped up, say, when they'd hit back they'd produce zero damage, but the air unit'd still hit. How 'bout that?
lol being that as it may I'm just not sure how you could represent dogfighting. I was pondering your thought and came up with perhaps re-working interceptor aircraft (different from fighter aircraft) where you would commit X amount of planes to Air Superiority. The Air Superiority would affect Y amount of tiles and be represented by a percentage. The higher percentage the more you control the skies and the less chance enemy bombers and fighters will have of harassing your troops. Since it wouldn't be an ordered attack you could happily have your interceptors floating around engaging enemy aircraft as they fight for superiority.

I gotta tell you though I'm just spitballing this to try and fit your wish, I don't think it would actually work very well. I'd love to see more plane animations but I'm happy with the current Fighter Engagement mission that Merged Mod adds for establishing air superiority.
I don't want to return to Civ 2, thanks very much.

The rest of what you said is very intriguing though :)
What I want is some way for my griffons and dragons to attack each other and be capable of engaging other units. Maybe there should be a "flying" tag in the unit, that makes the unit unassailable unless the other unit had Flying or Reach (I'm copying the MtG terms because it's basically the same idea that I want, actually what I'd like it to be is something like in StarCraft)
 
I also would like those same flyers to be able to fly over sea, but I guess it'd be too much.
 
Top Bottom