1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

11/25 - Air Combat

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    757
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    The biggest weakness that Fighter have on Interception duty is that their Promotions are stretched thin. They need Interception 2-4 to be up to speed. And then they will want Interceptor line to deal damage when Intercepting Bombers. This is important because....

    When drawing out Interceptions, Fighters can take Air Sweep line to Dogfight. This gives them an advantage vs Intercepting Fighters, as Air Sweep works Fighter vs Fighter, not just Interceptor line for all Interceptions.

    If we want Fighter to attack Units, I suggest letting them fight Naval Units. It seem weird to have Bombers fighting Naval Units. What other Units would you want Fighters to attack, besides Helicopters?

    Would it be possible to change the order in which Units are prioritized, so that the stronger Interceptors are chosen first, rather than seemingly random? What are the Interception priorities anyways?

    I find Bombers lacking in Promotions. Since, their roles are defined as attacking either Cities or Units, one thing we do is give them Level 4 Promotions of their mainline (Air Targeting 4 and Siege 4). Are there other Promotions we should give Bombers? If we want Stealth Bombers to be stationed on Carriers, we should lower their Range, oh wait it has been reduced to 10, from 20.
     
    civplayer33 likes this.
  2. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    Air Sweep Fighters should beat Interceptor Fighters, but I agree that Interceptor Fighters shouldn't have to take so many promotions to be good at intercepting bombers.

    My pipe dream would have the main promotion fighter roles something like this:

    Baseline: 50 damage to airstriking fighters and bombers during interception. Fighter dog-fights come away with 20-30 damage. Destroyers/AA guns deal 30-40 damage to aircraft that aren't sweeping, and dont have 100% success rate (or don't cancel attacks). Triplanes and Fighters have an Air Strike penalty such that they do 7 damage to ground units.

    Fighters can be promoted as such:

    Air Superiority I - III: bonus vs fighters, and implicitly works both during Air Sweep and Interception. III deals 70 damage to fighters without Air Superiority, with a chance of one-shotting. I suggest doing it this way so that it can dog-fight with other Air Superiority fighters.

    Interceptor I - III: bonus vs. bombers. Implicitly works only during interception. III almost always one-shots bombers without a defensive promotion (and then would do >90 damage, forcing it to sit out for a while). Instead of one-shotting, this promotion line could be the only way to get attack cancelling. Every other fighter and ground interception only deals damage.

    Ground Attack I - III: bonus vs ground units. Implicitly used during Air Strike. III deals 15 damage to ground units, strictly limiting it to a secondary role that is optionally taken after completing Air Superiority or Interceptor (instead of the other). Jet Fighters lose the ground attack penalty and can be used in a primary ground attack role.

    Bombers (and Air Striking fighters) require Air Superiority fighter support in order to push damage through (or an overwhelmingly large number to use up interceptions), and should probably do double the damage of Ground Attack fighters. Stealth Bombers don't rely on fighter support, but do benefit from it. They deal 1.5 times the damage of Ground Attack Fighters, which still require Air Superiority fighter support, but still can't be stationed on Carriers.

    Damage values are very roughly picked, and maybe a fully promoted Triplane dealing 1/5 of a health bar to ground units may be too much, but I hope you get the idea of what I'm going for.

    I chose to let interceptors and air superiority fighters take less damage because I think the urge to risk keeping them around for one more interception/air Sweep before rebasing them away to repair is higher than bombers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  3. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    I don't like ground units being able to attack-cancel, due to the prevalence of destroyers (AA guns aren't so bad due to space limitations). You'd need 6+ air sweeps to clear a target for bombing before you even take into account intercepting aircraft.
     
  4. vyyt

    vyyt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    @ilteroi + @Gazebo , is my idea about strafing planes stationed in cities with fighters feasible? Thanks!
     
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,826
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    For the last point, I'm curious @ilteroi - why are successful bombing runs being intercepted by cities? It should be a ranged attack and not have retaliation, right?


    G
     
  6. ilteroi

    ilteroi Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    341
    well, let's get the terms straight: there is "attacker damage" by the attacker to the defender, "defender damage" to the attacker from the defender and there is interception damage to the attacker (from a third unit). in regular air attacks the intercepter is undamaged.

    are you arguing that the "defender damage" (see GetAirStrikeDefenseDamage()) should be removed? i could live with that, or maybe replace it with a flat "attrition" value for each attack that doesn't depend on the defender.

    in general air combat is a mess ... for example in an air sweep, the defending AAA guns are not damaged (you might think it's a ranged "attack" but they use their melee strength) whereas air-patrolling fighters are damaged (you might think dogfight but they use their ranged strength). at least that's what i read from the code.

    also, air units are ranged units but to attack with them you need to use the MOVE mission like with a melee unit. whoever wrote this code was seriously confused.
     
  7. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    I think he's arguing that for air strikes on Cities there shouldn't be "defender damage" unless the attack is intercepted by an AA-gun or intercepting fighter; the "defender damage" coming from all other targets (units outside Cities) should stay.

    The thing about AA units and interceptor fighters being different in taking damage is fine, IMO; conceptually, that is.
     
    bigcat88 likes this.
  8. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,826
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I did fix one thing, GetAirStrikeDefenseDamage() wasn't considering promotions that reduce air strike damage. I've changed that, and stealth bombers now have a 50% reduction tacked onto their stealth promotion.

    G
     
  9. ilteroi

    ilteroi Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    341
    so, next question: should a failed interception nevertheless be counted? because right now it is not counted, so one unit gets multiple attempts to intercept each turn.

    edit: followup question ... what is a "failed interception"? a failed RNG test for interception probability or a failed RNG test for evasion probability? or both?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019
    bigcat88 likes this.
  10. vyyt

    vyyt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    Sorry for pushing this, but would you check if it is possible, if it is not too complicated? Thanks
     
  11. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,160
    Allright, so I just finished a very intense game that had a *LOT* of air combat in it. Some thoughts generally about this game.

    1. So first off, I was a Tradition empire going for a Cultural Victory who was also first in Diplomacy. My total military count was limited, which made Air Units invaluable as they required no count at all - I found this unreasonably in my favour.

    2. Secondly, it would be nice if VP included a mod to increase plane speed across the board as part of VP. I can't see any reason not to.

    3. I never lost a single Bomber unless I wanted to. It was easy to predict damage overall, easy to heal, and without air units ever being directly "vulnerable" - I effectively never lost a thing (I lost two planes intentionally because I needed the Oil/Aluminum for other things).

    4. I never saw the point in Fighters when SAMs were around. I dumped basically all my effort into Bombers and had a single levelled Fighter, and as far as I can tell it did all the work that was needed.


    General thoughts: I find air battles to be really, really dumb. Not at all worth the time that needs to go in to them. The disproportionate favour towards the human player seems higher here than anywhere else.


    Lacking a better idea that requires significant coding and graphics changes, my first and serious thought would be to just remove Air units altogether from the game. I know it isn't realistic nor is it a "socially appropriate" suggestion, but I'm not kidding - I actually find the Air battles in Civ V to be *THIS* dumb, that it's actually worth scrapping the whole thing.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  12. vyyt

    vyyt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    @Gidoza , where can I sign this? I agree 100%. And as you say, I find the air combat so broken, that I don't find removing it completely crazy (although I'd probably cry a little).

    Don't know if possible, but I think the ability to strafe airplanes stationed in cities with fighters would at least solve the problem - the planes would actually start dying and the fighters would be needed for both air superiority and strafing. See my repeated question/suggestion above.
     
  13. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    IMO it should not be counted; the available Interceptions per turn should only be reduced after the unit has actually conducted an Interception.

    Edit: actually, is it possible to make Sweeps always reduce the interception count but other attacks (Bomber or Fighter strikes) not? I think that would be ideal as otherwise Sweeping would be too devalued.

    Edit2: okay after looking at the code it seems that this is exactly what happens currently (as I lay out in the first "Edit").
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  14. BliTTzZ

    BliTTzZ Warlord

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    105
    Guys, I was always curious about if it's possible to make planes not suffer any retaliation damage from their targets. Only from dedicated AA units like AA-gun or mobile SAM.
    Is it even possible to code? Would it take too much work to balance air combat around this concept?
     
  15. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,166
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you could simply lower the air defense to 0 of any unit you thought shouldn't do any damage to planes. So they will take 0 damage when they attack.
     
  16. BliTTzZ

    BliTTzZ Warlord

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    105
    Units like Lancers do not have any air defense if I remember correctly, but planes still suffer from retaliation damage.

    What do you think about this concept? Or something like WW1 era planes only take damage from WW1 era units and upward, WW2 era planes from WW2 and upward and modern era planes only take damage from modern units.

    Wthat do you think about to make Bombers come 1 tech later after Fighters? This could encourage to build a few Fighters first and not Bombers. Will also make defending against bombers easier.

    And I was also courious about Guided Missile's placement in the tech tree. It's in odd position between WW1 and WW2 planes. The concept of modern guided missiles was born in 50ies.
     
  17. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    I don't think it's worth the effort to modify code to deal with the minor damage outdated units do against aircraft.

    Fighters should be built in response to bombers. If they aren't because it's not worth doing or otherwise, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. There is no reason to build fighters in this game without there being enemy bombers to counter.

    I have no problem with moving them, but they need to be worth using.
     
    Asterix Rage and vyyt like this.
  18. kenneth1221

    kenneth1221 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    I'm fine with lesser units hurting air units simply as a gameplay abstraction, I think of it as the fuel cost of hunting down those units.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  19. vyyt

    vyyt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,998
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    Was wondering how the air combat panned out. Did anyone except @Stalker0 had a chance to try it out? From what @Stalker0 said in another thread, I gather the AI seems to be using the air units well and as intended, but the strafing damage is too low (and volatile depending on promotions?), correct?
     

Share This Page