Fighter Interceptors acting weird?

Hi folks,

Is this weird/wrong or am I missing something...

If I assign 1 fighter at a city to Intercept, it will be seen circling the city. Ok, no problem. If I then assign another, I'll see two. Etc.

But on subsequent turns I will often only see 1 circling, when I've told more than 1 to Intercept. Unfortunately, a fighter on Intercept has the sleepy-eye task icon the same as something asleep. So the question is, when I only see 1 but know I assigned more than 1, has something gone wrong... or are the multiples still assigned and properly carrying out intercept, but just 1 is showing on the map? (IOW, it's just a display issue.)

There are a couple of twists to this...

What happens if a fighter on Intercept is damaged... does it automatically stop to Heal, then go back to Intercept? Or even, can it keep Intercepting while Healing? Or do I have to manually turn off Intercept for it to Heal?

Also, are carrier-based fighters any different... in particular, if I tell the carrier to sleep (or pause a turn), does that put its fighter assigned to Intercept to sleep? Again, I get the same problem of, after a turn or two I will only see 1 circling, not the 2 or 3 I know I assigned.

If anyone can help, it would put my mind at ease. Thanks!

MK

MK - your post raises lots of questions, quite apart from the "chances of interception" matter which was lengthily discussed in another thread a while ago.
1. Is there any advantage in having more than one fighter on intercept duty ? After all, a single land unit can defend against an unlimited number of attacks (with luck) so can a single fighter defend against multiple attacks ?
2. If a fighter makes a successful interception, does it ever get damaged ? How can one tell if a fighter has tried to intercept, but failed to do so ? In that case, was it damaged ?
3. It takes seven successful 'air bomb' bomber missions to reduce a city's defence to zero. Is this best done by seven separate attacks (each with a risk of interception) or by using a seven-bomber stack ? Can one fighter intercept such a stack ? Would one need seven defenders ?
As for fighters on carriers, I have no ideas but I do have an opinion, which is that carriers are useless. Air attacks on ships do only half the damage that they do on land, and cannot in any case do worse than reduce the ship's strength to half, so there's little point in setting up an air defence from a carrier (better to put a Destroyer on the same tile: it has an intercept chance, and is so much stronger than aircraft that a successful interception probably shoots the plane down). If the idea is to use the fighters for ground attack, they are so feeble that vast numbers would be needed to do real good, and if the idea is to transport the fighters to a combat zone it would be quicker, and risk-free, to rebase them.
By the way, the reason that I do not know if defending fighters can be lost or damaged is that although I have faced opponents who have bombers I have never ever been attacked by even one. No attacks, so no defences. But I have taken great pleasure in blasting enemy cities, and have lost a few planes in the process: it was a nasty surprise when a destroyer shot down one of my Stealth Bombers. For some reason, air combats do not appear in the Combat Logs.

The reason why you can't see more than one circling around is, I think, because at the beginning of every turn the animation starts from a certain point for all units. So, you actually have two or more planes flying around, they're just on top of each other so you can't actually see them separately.

Lord Olleus said:

to sort this out once and for all.
The SDK interception code

Code:

ool CvUnit::interceptTest(const CvPlot* pPlot)
{
	CvUnit* pInterceptor;
	CvWString szBuffer;
	int iOurInterceptProb;
	int iTheirInterceptProb;
	int iOurDamage;
	int iTheirDamage;

	if (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(100, "Evasion Rand") >= evasionProbability())
	{
		pInterceptor = bestInterceptor(pPlot);

		if (pInterceptor != NULL)
		{
			iOurInterceptProb = currInterceptionProbability();
			iTheirInterceptProb = pInterceptor->currInterceptionProbability();

			if (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(100, "Intercept Rand (Air)") < iTheirInterceptProb)
			{
				iOurDamage = 0;
				iTheirDamage = 0;

				if ((pInterceptor->getDomainType() == DOMAIN_AIR) && (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(100, "Intercept Rand (Air)") < (iOurInterceptProb / 5)))
				{
					iTheirDamage = min(100, GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(iOurInterceptProb, "Their Interception Damage Rand"));
				}
				else if (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(100, "Intercept Rand (Air)") < (iTheirInterceptProb / 3))
				{
					iOurDamage = currHitPoints();
				}
				else
				{
					iOurDamage = min(100, (GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(iTheirInterceptProb, "Our Interception Damage Rand #1") + GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(iTheirInterceptProb, "Our Interception Damage Rand #2")));
				}

				if (pPlot->isActiveVisible(false))
				{
					gDLL->getEntityIFace()->RemoveUnitFromBattle(pInterceptor);
					CvAirMissionDefinition kAirMission;
					kAirMission.eMissionType = MISSION_AIRSTRIKE;
					kAirMission.pkUnits[BDU_ATTACKER] = this;
					kAirMission.pkUnits[BDU_DEFENDER] = pInterceptor;
					kAirMission.iDamage[BDU_ATTACKER] = iOurDamage;
					kAirMission.iDamage[BDU_DEFENDER] = iTheirDamage;
					kAirMission.pkPlot = pPlot;
					kAirMission.fMissionTime = GC.getMissionInfo(MISSION_AIRSTRIKE).getTime() * gDLL->getSecsPerTurn();
					gDLL->getEntityIFace()->AddMission(kAirMission);
				}

				changeDamage(iOurDamage, pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE());
				pInterceptor->changeDamage(iTheirDamage, getOwnerINLINE());
				changeMoves(GC.getMOVE_DENOMINATOR());
				pInterceptor->setMadeInterception(true);

				if (pInterceptor->getDomainType() == DOMAIN_AIR)
				{
					pInterceptor->finishMoves();
				}

				if (iTheirDamage > 0)
				{
					pInterceptor->getGroup()->clearMissionQueue();
				}

				if (isDead())
				{
					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_SHOT_DOWN_ENEMY", pInterceptor->getNameKey(), getNameKey(), GET_PLAYER(getOwnerINLINE()).getCivilizationAdjectiveKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE(), false, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPT", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_GREEN"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE(), true, true);

					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_UNIT_SHOT_DOWN", getNameKey(), pInterceptor->getNameKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(getOwnerINLINE(), true, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPTED", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(pInterceptor->getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE());
				}
				else if (pInterceptor->isDead())
				{
					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_SHOT_DOWN_ENEMY", getNameKey(), pInterceptor->getNameKey(), GET_PLAYER(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE()).getCivilizationAdjectiveKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(getOwnerINLINE(), true, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPT", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(pInterceptor->getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_GREEN"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE(), true, true);

					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_UNIT_SHOT_DOWN", pInterceptor->getNameKey(), getNameKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE(), false, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPTED", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE());
				}
				else if (iOurDamage > 0)
				{
					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_HURT_ENEMY_AIR", pInterceptor->getNameKey(), getNameKey(), -(iOurDamage), GET_PLAYER(getOwnerINLINE()).getCivilizationAdjectiveKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE(), false, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPT", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_GREEN"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE(), true, true);

					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_AIR_UNIT_HURT", getNameKey(), pInterceptor->getNameKey(), -(iOurDamage));
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(getOwnerINLINE(), true, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPTED", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(pInterceptor->getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE());
				}
				else if (iTheirDamage > 0)
				{
					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_HURT_ENEMY_AIR", getNameKey(), pInterceptor->getNameKey(), -(iTheirDamage), GET_PLAYER(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE()).getCivilizationAdjectiveKey());
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(getOwnerINLINE(), true, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPT", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(pInterceptor->getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_GREEN"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE(), true, true);

					szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_YOU_AIR_UNIT_HURT", pInterceptor->getNameKey(), getNameKey(), -(iTheirDamage));
					gDLL->getInterfaceIFace()->addMessage(pInterceptor->getOwnerINLINE(), false, GC.getDefineINT("EVENT_MESSAGE_TIME"), szBuffer, "AS2D_INTERCEPTED", MESSAGE_TYPE_INFO, GC.getUnitInfo(getUnitType()).getButton(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), pPlot->getX_INLINE(), pPlot->getY_INLINE());
				}

				return true;
			}
		}
	}

	return false;

Click to expand...

You've got to be joking.

Bushface and others, you make some great points. But also the main one (for me) seems to be answered...

It makes sense that the intercept graphic might start at the same place and "cover up" additional fighters. So I guess I'm ok - yes, the additional fighters are on intercept, even if you can't see them. This take a lot of worry off my shoulders.

I will try to keep an eye on the intercept messages, to see if I ever notice damage with a successful intercept.

Thanks again everyone!!

this is what i thought, but i wasn't sure. thanks everyone.

Confusion worse confounded - unless of course you are fluent in C++, which I am not.
However, it is clear (and obvious) that in an attack the program looks for the best defender (but is this the strongest, or the one with the best chance of intercepting, should there be a choice ?), calculates the chance of interception, then if an interception does occur the damage is calculated and reported.
But, and it's a big but, some points are not at all clear to me.
1. There are lines referring to "our damage" and "their damage". Is "ours" the attacker or the player, these being not necessarily identical ? It seems that both attacker and defender can be damaged: is this so ?
2. There is a section "interceptor is dead" but I've never seen an on-screen report of this, though I have seen reports of my attacking plane being shot down. Air combat results do not appear in my combat logs; should they ?
3. There are sections both for "ours" and "theirs" for 'if damage > 0' and in both there are lines for "you hurt enemy air" and "you air unit hurt". Surely only one of these is applicable ? If "our" unit was damaged, then it was hurt: if "theirs" was damaged, then that was hurt.
4. Is there a flag, which I am unable to identify, indicating that an interceptor has been used (successfully or not) and cannot be used again in the current turn ? This would differ from the system for land units, which can defend against successive attacks in the same turn until they die or no more attacks are made. Why shouldn't the "best defender" against a second attack be the defender damaged (but not killed) in the first attack, or one which failed to intercept and therefore suffered no damage ?

I can't even get a printout of the code, for study by someone better qualified than I, since at present I have no functional printer - let alone one with a wide carriage.

If a plane is on a carrier I'll be asked every turn what to do with it. If I've moved the ship, when the game cycles to that plane, I just see the plane sitting out in the middle of the water.

I did a check with 200 airfights (two cities created via Worldbuilder, both of them holding 100 fighters). The attackers did an airstrike against the units in the defending city, as this seemed to be the only logical way to have all of them attack (bombing would have resulted in city defenses going to 0 or being 0 from the start, thus ending the session of air attacks).

Below you will find the results (100 airfights with the attacked city having 60% defense, 100 airfights with the attacked city having 0% defense):
Berlin - attacker site, Persepolis: defender site
The percentages "intercepted" state the percentage of damage done to either the attacker or the defender

Berlin =======> Persepolis
Shot down --- Shot down
49% ------------- 0 %
Intercepted 90%
4,5 % ------------ 1,5 %
Intercepted 80%
3,5 % ------------- 3 %
Intercepted 70%
3,5 % ------------- 1,5 %
Intercepted 60%
5 % --------------- 2 %
Intercepted 50%
2 % --------------- 1,5 %
Intercepted 40%
3 % --------------- 4,5 %
Intercepted 30%
2 % --------------- 3 %
Intercepted 20%
1 % --------------- 5 %
Intercepted 10%
0,5% -------------- 4 %

As you will see, in 200 airfights it never happened that an intercepting (defending) fighter was shot down. In only 25% of the combats, the defending fighter was damaged. In 49% percent of all cases, the attacker was shot down. In 25% cases, the attacker was not shot down, but damaged (and typically, was damaged to a higher degree than the defender).

So, attacking fighter-defended cities with your own fighters clearly is a very bad idea.
Fighters can be used for interception, reconnaissance, airstrikes against unprotected units and bombing against unprotected cities/tiles. Active battling for air superiority is not possible, which constitues a clear misconception, as far as I see it.

Even more questions arise !
1. Did it make any difference whether the defending city had 60% defence or none ? In other words, does city defence help against air attack ?
2. Presumably the defending city had a huge amount of ground troops, in order for the attackers to have valid targets ?
3. Was interception made of each and every separate attack ? Given that the stated chance of fighter interception being made is only 50%, about half the attacks should have resulted in success, with no damage to the attacker and presumably none to the defender either.
4. How did you discover what damage was done to the interceptors ? As I have said before, air combat results do not appear in my combat logs.
5. Have you the patience to try attacks not only by fighters but also jets, bombers and stealth bombers, and against defences by fighters, jets and SAM units ? Or combinations of any of these ?

Finally, the obtained result of no losses to the defenders appears to indicate that whilst one can defend successfully against repeated attacks by having loads of defenders, there is no way to "control the skies" (I quote from an on-screen tip) by air power, so that one can bomb or air-strike at will, The only way to destroy an enemy air-force is to capture the base cities, but I think everyone is already aware of this. Certainly the AI knows the great advantage given to the defender, which is why in my games I have never even once been the victim of an air attack against a defended city.

Bush, I think Bello said that nothing on the ground in the city was ever touched... so presumably only 1 unit was needed there. See, half of attackers were shot down, the other half did a dog-fight with defending fighters. Of the latter half, the defenders won half the time. And usually did more damage. Read on...

I did just a scenario where I sent piles of bombers and fighters to attack ground units in enemy cities that only had a few fighters. (Endgame for the AI. ) Defending fighters apparently only get one attempt at interception and then must "rest". This will always happen, as of the first time an air attack is attempted. In other words, no bombers will get through unless and until all your Interceptors covering the target square have made their one interception attempt. (This assumes they're not Healing, of course - see below.) So since CB attacked 100 with 100, nothing ever got through to hit ground troops. If he had attacked 100 with 101, then 1 would have.

Conversely, Mech Inf in the defending city may take a while to shoot back. (This is after all defending Interceptors have taken their 1 shot.) But AFAIK they too only get one shot. (Either that or I just didn't try it enough. At a 30% chance though I am thinking they only get 1 shot.) I think this helps answer an earlier question somebody posted.

Another thing I was watching, but can't recall anyone addressing - fighters assigned to Intercept which have been damaged and are healing, do not Intercept. At least this is true for the AI's fighters. Not sure for Players, but I assume it's true. If it is, it can probably be gotten around (if desparate) by manually re-assigning damaged fighters to Intercept again.

I still don't know if a Player's damaged fighters that were set to Intercept, will start Intercepting again once their damage heals. (If they were not manually re-assigned to Intercept despite damage but instead rested to Heal as normal.) Should be easy to test, though.

C Bello, like Bush asked, does the defending city's Percent Defense matter? According to the Interception description, they will intercept anywhere within their range. So I would have guessed that it doesn't matter... but it's just a guess. (They're not "dug in" in the sky over the city or whatever. We've already seen how e.g. gunpowder units ignore walls. I can only imagine dog fights don't have anything to do with defenses of a ground square they're fighting over.)

3EMS, I have not had that problem with Carriers. I have had the problem of, not knowing if they're intercepting or asleep. But not constantly asking for orders. If it helps, I either move the ships as a stack (double-click on stack, which only selects ships), or I select just the fighters. All of them by control-clicking on one of them. I set them to Intercept. Do you still get them needing orders if you do like this? Just thinking out loud here.

Somebody said above that they thought fighters on carriers were worthless. Since defending interceptors get a great bonus (thanks for that work, Bello!) and can entirely nullify a bombing attempt if the number of active interceptors is equal to or greater than attackers, it still makes sense to have carrier interceptors - IF you are out of range of any friendly cities in which to base interceptors to cover e.g. a fleet or amphibious assault.

ModernKnight said:

[....]
C Bello, like Bush asked, does the defending city's Percent Defense matter? According to the Interception description, they will intercept anywhere within their range. So I would have guessed that it doesn't matter... but it's just a guess. (They're not "dug in" in the sky over the city or whatever. We've already seen how e.g. gunpowder units ignore walls. I can only imagine dog fights don't have anything to do with defenses of a ground square they're fighting over.)[....]

Click to expand...

I had the impression that city defenses allowed for higher damage to be put at the attacker.
In absolute figures, there was no significant difference for the attackers being shot down, yet in the second attempt (when the defending city had 0% defense value) the percentage of damage done was lower.

About how I did determine those values: I airstriked the defending city and noted done the results for any engagement in an Excel sheet on my laptop. Therefore, the whole investigation took quite some time which in turn lead to the fact that I only run these two rounds of checks up to now.

Commander Bello, good to see that you've done some tests. I also have done some tests in an earlier version of civ4, namely 1.52. It could be that something was changed inbetween the versions because air interception was seriously wrong in version 1.52. But my results were different than yours.

I wonder if you changed the interception percentages of the fighters involved in the fighting. You do not seem to have fighters that were not intercepted. In my tests, it was clear that a 50% interception chance meant that only 50% of bombing runs by fighters were intercepted and resulted in a dogfight. You seem to have 100% of the fighters getting intercepted or intercepting themselves. Did you set interception chances at 100%?

The main reason that I ask this is because in version 1.52 of civ4 the chance of interception and damage done was totally controlled by the interception percentages of attacker and defender (according to my tests). The value of the city defence and the strength values of the units involved were of no consequence. So if you changed the interception percentages, then you can't say that these results would be the same for fighters with the normal 50% interception chance.

I'm not familiar with C++ (or with programming in general), but if I understand the posted interception code correctly, then an attacking fighter cannot succesfully kill a defending fighter as long as the attacking fighter's interception chances are lower than 100%.
[This line is responsible for that: iTheirDamage = min(100, GC.getGameINLINE().getSorenRandNum(iOurInterceptProb, "Their Interception Damage Rand"));
]

In version 1.52, I also did some tests with higher values of interception probabilities and got some reasonable results when interception percentages were close to 200%. Seeing the code of the interception formula, I can see why. Only then the attacking figher's chance of interception becomes reasonable and the damage that it does is high enough for a kill.

I think that interception is still badly programmed, but it can be changed by modifying the numbers in the interception code using the SDK.

It's a pity that this thread is in the general forum as threads in the general forum quickly move down.

Thanks, C Bello. Do you still have the spreadsheet? Would it be much trouble to average the damages, for the high defense vs. the no defense city?

Roland, what I said a few messages above, were only my thoughts from my massive air force attacking a few enemy cities. IOW, not a rigorous test and/or the enemy may have gotten "lucky" somehow to make things strike me as as they did. I'll try to pay attention more in the future. But I'm interested to hear whether Commander B changed his intercept values. I didn't. (I'm using 1.61.)

If anybody wants to move this message thread, feel free... we'll still be subscribed, yes?

To make it more clear. A fighter with strength 5 and interception rate 300% would always win an air fight of a jet fighter with strength 200 and interception rate 50%.

Air interception results are dictated by the interception rate.

Wanted to bring this topic alive again. Nice test done below! So, what's the best way to brake the defense and conquer a city with a lot of intercepting fighters? Bring on a lot of expensive Stealth Bombers? Bring in some mech.inf-defended artillery? What to conclude?

Commander Bello said:

I did a check with 200 airfights (two cities created via Worldbuilder, both of them holding 100 fighters). The attackers did an airstrike against the units in the defending city, as this seemed to be the only logical way to have all of them attack (bombing would have resulted in city defenses going to 0 or being 0 from the start, thus ending the session of air attacks).

Below you will find the results (100 airfights with the attacked city having 60% defense, 100 airfights with the attacked city having 0% defense):
Berlin - attacker site, Persepolis: defender site
The percentages "intercepted" state the percentage of damage done to either the attacker or the defender

Berlin =======> Persepolis
Shot down --- Shot down
49% ------------- 0 %
Intercepted 90%
4,5 % ------------ 1,5 %
Intercepted 80%
3,5 % ------------- 3 %
Intercepted 70%
3,5 % ------------- 1,5 %
Intercepted 60%
5 % --------------- 2 %
Intercepted 50%
2 % --------------- 1,5 %
Intercepted 40%
3 % --------------- 4,5 %
Intercepted 30%
2 % --------------- 3 %
Intercepted 20%
1 % --------------- 5 %
Intercepted 10%
0,5% -------------- 4 %

As you will see, in 200 airfights it never happened that an intercepting (defending) fighter was shot down. In only 25% of the combats, the defending fighter was damaged. In 49% percent of all cases, the attacker was shot down. In 25% cases, the attacker was not shot down, but damaged (and typically, was damaged to a higher degree than the defender).

So, attacking fighter-defended cities with your own fighters clearly is a very bad idea.
Fighters can be used for interception, reconnaissance, airstrikes against unprotected units and bombing against unprotected cities/tiles. Active battling for air superiority is not possible, which constitues a clear misconception, as far as I see it.

Click to expand...

I wonder if attacking with higher-tech fighters would give a chance that the defenders would be shot down.

Maybe not - soren rand numbers, if you use two of them with the same name, do you get the same value? Or is a new one generated?

Never mind the chances of interception - I've found that the best way of achieving success with air attacks is a two-stage strategy, easy to state but not necessarily easy to achieve.
Step 1. Ensure your adversary has no oil. Then he can't build aircraft.
Step 2. Attack before your opponent has Rocketry. Then he can't train SAMs or Mech. Inf.

There's a minor snag to Step 1: if your opponent has Uranium and Fission, he can build Destroyers, and I once had a Stealth Bomber shot down by a Destroyer. Just once. And if you can't get his Oil, try for his Aluminium, without which he cant build Jet Fighters or Stealth Bombers.

All of which is true, obvious, and not very helpful, I suppose.

ModernKnight said:

Hi folks,

Is this weird/wrong or am I missing something...

If I assign 1 fighter at a city to Intercept, it will be seen circling the city. Ok, no problem. If I then assign another, I'll see two. Etc.

But on subsequent turns I will often only see 1 circling, when I've told more than 1 to Intercept. Unfortunately, a fighter on Intercept has the sleepy-eye task icon the same as something asleep. So the question is, when I only see 1 but know I assigned more than 1, has something gone wrong... or are the multiples still assigned and properly carrying out intercept, but just 1 is showing on the map? (IOW, it's just a display issue.)

There are a couple of twists to this...

What happens if a fighter on Intercept is damaged... does it automatically stop to Heal, then go back to Intercept? Or even, can it keep Intercepting while Healing? Or do I have to manually turn off Intercept for it to Heal?

Also, are carrier-based fighters any different... in particular, if I tell the carrier to sleep (or pause a turn), does that put its fighter assigned to Intercept to sleep? Again, I get the same problem of, after a turn or two I will only see 1 circling, not the 2 or 3 I know I assigned.

If anyone can help, it would put my mind at ease. Thanks!

MK

Click to expand...

Another thing to note is this.....

If you end your game and come back to it later, all the fighters you had intercepting in cities will emerge from the city at the same time when you restart.

This also applies to carriers, and also when you move a carrier with more than one fighter intercepting from it.

It will only show as one, but all the fighters you told to intercept will still be exactly where you told them to be, doing exactly what you told them to do.

Hope this helps.

Yes, if your oppenent is gimp, you win. And yes, many fights in Civ4 reduce to "your opponent is a complete gimp, and you win".

Now how do you deal with a challenging opponent?

A fighter/bomber concentrated attack works reasonably well. I believe each unit can intercept at most once -- I don't think the limit is one attempt, but rather 1 successful intercept.

But I could be wrong... It needs testing.