KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well each interceptor can intercept as many times as it wants, so I'm guessing 4 Interceptors would provide 4 Opportunites to intercept a Bomber
I forsee the HRE unique unit (I can't spell it) being used with great effect in conjunction with their UB (although their traits are absolutely AWFUL).
Landsknecht:
(Unique Unit for the Holy Roman Empire; Replaces Pikeman)
6 Strengths, 1 Movement
* +100% vs. Mounted Units
* +100% vs. Melee Units
Rumor has it that the Phalanx UU becomes an Axeman that begins with the March promotion! That could become a pretty powerful UU for sure!
Supposedly, the Samurai begins with Drill I too. That'll be interesting...
i kind of wonder with the new air combat system, let say the defending city has one really injured fighter and that you only have bombers. Since they will keep intercepting, that one injure fighter is going to intercept all your bombers. But wait, bombers cannot fight (at least not to my current knowledge), all your bombers cant do any bombing because every mission they will get intercepted. Can bombers have a way to fight intercepting fighters now in BTS? Or are we stuck with no bombing mission possible because bombers can fight fighters.
I'm not really sure I like all these changes. It seems that all these changes are buffing defenses across the board and I already think that defenses are too strong, thus necessitating siege engines as they were in the first place. They need to tone down archers, longbowmen and machine guns.
how dose it works in warlords if you have 3 sam infantry in one city and the first sam infantry didn't intercept the attacking fighter? will the second sam try to intercept or does this mean a successful fighter attack?
New Fighters have 100% interception chance. I think when it has 50% health it only has 50% interception chance. So that would make it easier.
But that's a good question. What happens when you attack a city with bombers and in the city is a full health Fighter with 100% interception chance?
Maybe now you really have to fight with Fighters first to reduce the health/interception chance (or kill) the defending Fighters.
Else they would intercept or kill every single Bomber with no Evade Chance (Stealth and the new Air Promotion: Ace give Evade Chance).
interesting[...]The only thing I might disagree with is that I think Fighters shouldn't get 100% Interception throughout their entire range. If the Bomber is attacking the same tile as the Fighter, like a city, then it should get 100%. But the farther away you get from the Fighter's position, the lower the interception chance. So if you were trying to bomb an improvement 6 or 7 tiles away from the nearest fighter, the chance for a successful bombing should be higher.
That's one of the biggest questions in Civ4 I think. You can post a question about the most obscure game-mechanic you can think of and get a good answer in no-time, but when it comes to air-combat, nobody seems to know....GIR said:how dose it works in warlords if you have 3 sam infantry in one city and the first sam infantry didn't intercept the attacking fighter? will the second sam try to intercept or does this mean a successful fighter attack?
EDIT: I could open up worldbuilder to check some stuff out, but I'm too lazy I'm afraid
The result is going to be the same thing as when the Allies tried bombing German cities without wiping out the German air force first: lots of flaming wreckage.
I think this is very interesting... it makes gaining air superiority first much more important. The only thing I might disagree with is that I think Fighters shouldn't get 100% Interception throughout their entire range. If the Bomber is attacking the same tile as the Fighter, like a city, then it should get 100%. But the farther away you get from the Fighter's position, the lower the interception chance. So if you were trying to bomb an improvement 6 or 7 tiles away from the nearest fighter, the chance for a successful bombing should be higher.
But either way, I think this is an improvement.
I was surprised to see this at first, but now can understand. Although I'm not an expert in air warfare, bombers are mostly effective after their side took air superiority through air-to-air battles. This change means that you need to control the air first with several fighters to shot down enemy interceptors before bombers are on duty. Blind bombing with 10+ bombers alone in pre-BTS were stupid and illogical I think.
The only other thing I don't like is that the SAM Infantry can take out certain planes... First of all, it's unrealistic because many planes fly well outside the maximum range of a hand-held anti-aircraft weapon.
Secondly though, it's unbalanced because it's a no-risk anti-aircraft weapon. Fighters can be damaged or even destroyed when intercepting... SAM Infantry can't.
I think that reflects the real world situation quite well. Unless you're specifically targeting SAM infantry with an air strike, there's really no reason a ground unit would come under fire from above.
In Civ4 vanilla and Warlords only one unit, the unit with the best interception chance, will try to intercept. Also, each unit can only intercept once.
Presumably, the first part will remain the same in Beyond the Sword, but second part will change. Units can intercept multiple times per turn.
What happens when you unload them from the aircraft carriers into a tile that cannot contain them all? (This thing with the aircraft carriers wouldn't be a problem if cities could only contain a limited number of bombers but an unlimited number of fighters as aircraft carriers can't carry bombers.)
The new air combat sounds pretty interesting, but still many questions remain.