skallben
Diplomat
What's to say we won't develop technology to much easier detect stealth aircraft?
That discussion aside, 100% evasion is overpowered. Basta.
That discussion aside, 100% evasion is overpowered. Basta.
Whats the point of Jet Fighters?
- Thread starter Gucumatz
- Start date
Doesn't matter if the US only went to war against nations far inferior in military strength because let's face it, against the US, everyone is.
And it doesn't change the fact that countries far stronger, comparatively speaking, still lack technologies and military power to stop the US B-2s if they were at war.
You think China could stop the B-2s? or France? or Japan?
No, they can't.
And lastly if you knew anything about how air combat works in modern era, you would realize how silly your tactic sounds.
Moderator Action: Please do not address posts like this, report them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
The few times I've teched to and used them, I've used them most effectively as air defence - due to their range, if set as interceptors they are lethal to enemy fighters on intercept missions, even if you're bombing distant targets (and don't they get a bonus against fighters, rather suggesting that this is their intended role?)
You also assume you want to use them in a technologically equal match-up - if you're ahead they're just better versions of fighters to intercept enemy non-stealth bombers.
You also assume you want to use them in a technologically equal match-up - if you're ahead they're just better versions of fighters to intercept enemy non-stealth bombers.
This is funny because...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
Moderator Action: Please take this discussion to the History threads of the forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This thread is about game balance/design, not the success of real-life military campaigns. Why must every mention of the U.S. lead to this?
Peacemongerer
Prince
Pretty sure we've gone off-topic here... this was a game design complaint.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Alright normally I am not the one to say this - but calm your heads down a bit.
-===========================
At the moment from a realism perspective I know that Stealths vs Jets is something that wouldn't occur outside of a theoretical perspective.
I agree maybe reducing the evasion chance of Stealths would help balance things a bit. Or we could have another theoretical unit altogether instead of a Jet Fighter (Maybe not as made up as a Giant Death Robot, but something that can balance things. Some futuristic drone perhaps?).
-===========================
At the moment from a realism perspective I know that Stealths vs Jets is something that wouldn't occur outside of a theoretical perspective.
I agree maybe reducing the evasion chance of Stealths would help balance things a bit. Or we could have another theoretical unit altogether instead of a Jet Fighter (Maybe not as made up as a Giant Death Robot, but something that can balance things. Some futuristic drone perhaps?).
Lexicus
Deity
B-2s aren't completely invisible. They detect radar from most angles but if it gets lucky enough it will detect it. And despite the engineers' best efforts they can't be invisible to thermal imaging. China could probably stop whatever conventional forces we threw at them with sheer weight of numbers.
They should have a 75% chance of evading interception not a 100%. Makes sense from gameplay and realism.
Moderator Action: Please bring this thread back on topic or it will be closed. Enough history, that discussion belongs in the History section of these forums. It is a game play and play balance issue, not a simulation of real life.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Maybe the giant death robot should be able to shoot down stealth bombers. It is more technologically advanced after all.
Every technological innovation comes out of necessity. It is only a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to overcome current stealth practices. Since the game goes into the near future age, it is not unrealistic that something towards the end of the tech tree should overcome stealth technology (or nuclear technology for that matter).
Every technological innovation comes out of necessity. It is only a matter of time before someone comes up with a way to overcome current stealth practices. Since the game goes into the near future age, it is not unrealistic that something towards the end of the tech tree should overcome stealth technology (or nuclear technology for that matter).
GhostSalsa
Emperor
The point of jet fighters is tearing up earlier-gen fighters.
This actually fits needs nicely in 1 player because the AI is always using oil filters as bombers for some inscrutable reason. I rarely see it put fighters on intercept like they should be, it just treats them like little gnats nipping at your units. The jet fighter can shut those things up for you in a mid-modern era war, very satisfyingly -- not to mention protect your stupid helicopter which apparently can't land.
Seriously why can't the helicopter land? Or is it that you can try telling it to land, but the pilots never make it 24 hours without taking it out to WaWa for late night hotdogs?
This actually fits needs nicely in 1 player because the AI is always using oil filters as bombers for some inscrutable reason. I rarely see it put fighters on intercept like they should be, it just treats them like little gnats nipping at your units. The jet fighter can shut those things up for you in a mid-modern era war, very satisfyingly -- not to mention protect your stupid helicopter which apparently can't land.
Seriously why can't the helicopter land? Or is it that you can try telling it to land, but the pilots never make it 24 hours without taking it out to WaWa for late night hotdogs?
Isn't the game pretty much over by the time Stealth comes into play?
GK pushed stealth further back, so I would assume most players are able to finish the game before stealth really takes off anywhere to be massively dominant.
I always just assume this late stage combats mostly involve around winner just further strengthening victory.
If for balance issue, I guess enforcing MASSIVE maintenance cost should sound about right, to limit the number of them. However, if you are already winning, you are able to roll them easily just because you are winning, which basically just goes back to my point of its winner's toy...
GK pushed stealth further back, so I would assume most players are able to finish the game before stealth really takes off anywhere to be massively dominant.
I always just assume this late stage combats mostly involve around winner just further strengthening victory.
If for balance issue, I guess enforcing MASSIVE maintenance cost should sound about right, to limit the number of them. However, if you are already winning, you are able to roll them easily just because you are winning, which basically just goes back to my point of its winner's toy...
I have won several G&K games and never come near to stealth bombers. I don't go for a science or diplo victory though because I find the late game "click end turn" over and over to be cumbersome. I generally win by domination or culture sometime in the Industrial Age.
More empire size/SP dependent.
You can earn more culture with more cities but the cost also increases, but with the right SP each city is worth more than it costs. There's a good balance around 10-12 cities... and France's UA helps a lot with that (as does the right pantheon/religion/wonders).
You can earn more culture with more cities but the cost also increases, but with the right SP each city is worth more than it costs. There's a good balance around 10-12 cities... and France's UA helps a lot with that (as does the right pantheon/religion/wonders).
The_Quasar
King
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 862
Seems to me that the Jet Fighter represents a fighter of about 1970s vintage...
What we really need to counter the SB is a state of the art fighter of current vintage, to counter a state of the art threat, for example, a Tornado Euro-Fighter.
This could be an upgrade, or it could be a new model, perhaps becoming available with the SB...
I might add that it's a very effective and accurate bomber as well, so this should also be reflected in game.
It's about time the SB had some proper counter in the game, as it has in reality, (although the two are most unlikely to meet in combat in reality, of course).
What we really need to counter the SB is a state of the art fighter of current vintage, to counter a state of the art threat, for example, a Tornado Euro-Fighter.
This could be an upgrade, or it could be a new model, perhaps becoming available with the SB...
I might add that it's a very effective and accurate bomber as well, so this should also be reflected in game.
It's about time the SB had some proper counter in the game, as it has in reality, (although the two are most unlikely to meet in combat in reality, of course).
How about just reducing Evasion II promo from 100 to 90-95? Gives a slim chance of interception (which probably won't really do much since I've yet to see an interception destroy one and the slim chance will mean it'll probably Air Repair before intercepted again.
Biggest issue with air is how tough they can get... air units should have less HP than land units. I'd say a 50 base and heal only 5 points a turn. That would relegate them to more of a support role early on but still allow them to have some dominance later (without being completely overpowering)... or just make them suffer double damage from retalliation strikes/interceptions.
There also needs to be a damage bonus to some interception style attacks (Mobile SAM/Jet Fighter... I'd add Missile Cruiser but it needs to be a resource reliant unit so it can't be severely spammed... perhaps a resource requiring Patriot style missle that can be loaded on Missile Cruisers) so they can actually have a chance (even if slim) to shoot down a Nuke/SB in one interception...
Biggest issue with air is how tough they can get... air units should have less HP than land units. I'd say a 50 base and heal only 5 points a turn. That would relegate them to more of a support role early on but still allow them to have some dominance later (without being completely overpowering)... or just make them suffer double damage from retalliation strikes/interceptions.
There also needs to be a damage bonus to some interception style attacks (Mobile SAM/Jet Fighter... I'd add Missile Cruiser but it needs to be a resource reliant unit so it can't be severely spammed... perhaps a resource requiring Patriot style missle that can be loaded on Missile Cruisers) so they can actually have a chance (even if slim) to shoot down a Nuke/SB in one interception...
Bino
Warlord
Its only me but iirc inVanilla my stealth bombers were often intercepted by fighters and jet fighters...
And from gameplay perspective it should not happen that something has no counterbalance, unless theres some very specific reason (scenario?).
And from gameplay perspective it should not happen that something has no counterbalance, unless theres some very specific reason (scenario?).
Similar threads
- Locked
