Enhanced Air Warfare 4VP

[pineappledan]

I know you’re trying to stick only to air units here, but if autocracy and freedom get late-game upgrades to their unique ideology unit, shouldn’t Order get an upgrade for the guerilla too?

 

[Asterix Rage]

shouldn’t Order get an upgrade for the guerilla too?

I thought about that of course ...and still thinking.
I'd like to have feedback before to make a decision. My tests show that B-52 and MiG-29 doesn't give an extra bonus to Freedom/Autocraty. It can not be seen as an upgrade. They are the B17/Zero repliqua on the second Air Units line. Actually, I've integrated B52/ MiG29 to restore balance with Order ideology.

I need feedback about this concern, definitely.

If needed, I've already few ideas to bring a little something to Order.

EDIT: Upgrades of Zero an B17 are still the same than before. Play EAW first, and tell me what you think

 

[adan_eslavo]

Loose thoughts. Maybe you could consider renaming some units:

Early Bomber ==> Bomber
Medium Bomber ==> Modern Bomber
Early Monoplane ==> Monoplane
Early Jet Fighter ==> Subsonic Jet Fighter
Jet Fighter ==> Turbo Jet Fighter

Reason? Those "Early" and "Medium" prefixes are booring imo.

 

[Asterix Rage]

Those "Early" and "Medium" prefixes are booring imo.

I don't know how many times I changed the names so far.
Among what you suggest, I like:
Early Monoplane ==> Monoplane
Early Jet Fighter ==> Subsonic Jet Fighter
Jet Fighter ==> Turbo Jet Fighter

Early/Medium/Heavy Bomber doesn't sound very sexy but it expresses clearly the linear progression.
Also, because the Early Jet Fighter is very unique (2 of them only with Pentagone) I could simply rename it P-80 Shooting Star.

Edit: Biplane Bomber instead Early Bomber ?
Edit: Twin Engine Bomber instead Medium Bomber?

 

[KittyKat3120]

May I ask why the PiG-26 was chosen for Authocracty considering it was made by the soviets?

 

[adan_eslavo]

• If you use "P-80 Shooting Star", then you can use both Jet Fighter/Turbo Jet Fighter. I like using names like P-80 for such non-common units.
  
• "Biplane Bomber" or even "Biplane", because there's no other biplane in EAW so far, right?
• "Twin Engine Bomber" is nice.
• You can use "Strategic Bomber" for one of both "Medium Bomber" or "Heavy Bomber" (I would use for second). EDIT: I can see you have Strategic Bomber already. What is difference between Strategic and Heavy if both upgrade from Medium? How to choose to which upgrade if you have one button?

Yeah, renaming is just playing with details, but I like to make sure everything looks professional, even names I did that many times for promotions in POfVP too.

 

[adan_eslavo]

May I ask why the PiG-26 was chosen for Authocracty considering it was made by the soviets?

Indeed, for autocracy, better would be other plane, but maybe there's lack of appropriate model for other plane. He could use MIG-29 model and just rename it.

 

[adan_eslavo]

@Asterix Rage When you're ready with new promotions, or rework some of them in EAW, then tell me. I will do POfVP compatibility patch similar like current for ENW.

 

[Asterix Rage]

What is difference between Strategic and Heavy if both upgrade from Medium?

They don't !
You should play EAW

appropriate model

A lot of Fighters/Bombers could match with the needs in EAW. But the models don't exist.
The quality of the design is the most important criteria for a model to be in EAW.

 

[adan_eslavo]

They don't !
You should play EAW

Ahh I was misslead by the info in main post:

I really want to play it out, but waiting for next VP version. Aaand I must continue my work on More Wonders and this takes time...

A lot of Fighters/Bombers could match with the needs in EAW. But the models don't exist.
The quality of the design is the most important criteria for a model to be in EAW.

What about using MIG-29 model with different name? I know it is little unproffessional, but helps with flavour.

 

[adan_eslavo]

So current and planned lines are (correct me please):

(1) Triplane ==> Fighter ==> Stealth Fighter
(2) Monoplane (P18 (special)) ==> Turbo Jet Fighter ==> Advanced Jet Fighter
(3) Biplane ==> Heavy Bomber == Jet Bomber
(4) Twin-Engine Bomber ==> Strategic Bomber ==> Stealth Bomber
(5) B17 ==> B52
(6) Zero ==> Mig29

If I didn't mess up things, zero/mig29 and b17/B52 are to close in tech tree imo. Maybe zero and B17 should be available one tier earlier at Combined Arms?

 

[Tekamthi]

Loose thoughts. Maybe you could consider renaming some units:
Those "Early" and "Medium" prefixes are booring imo.

I partially agree... after clicking into this thread, i did a little historical reading on some high-level sources on bombers... hardly enough to develop any kind of expertise, but i made a few notes to add to the discussion here:

i don't like the prefixes like "early" and "advanced" in particular.. when they're the latest tech available it seems odd that the civ would think of them as "early".. equivalent of naming a post-stealth bomber the future bomber.. somewhat subjective and just uninteresting generally

i am mixed on prefixes like "strategic" -- all bombers after the onset of the monoplane style were used in both strategic and/or tactical roles... i understand the "strategic bomber" usage here denotes the large, heavy-payload-carrying bombers of the cold world era that were most prominent in their ability to carry early nukes, and that these are somewhat distinctive, but in civ these nukes sorta just drop themselves, eliminating the key characteristic of what made these "strategic bombers" known as such.

if i had to force all the significant developments into a linear order, i'd focus on key roles/tech as follows: recon (or tactical) bomber -> monoplane (or dive) bomber -> medium (or twin-engine) bomber -> heavy (or four-engine) bomber -> high-altitude (or strategic) bomber -> jet bomber -> stealth bomber -> ?

to fit the current state of EAW to the most important historical developments, i'd go with recon bomber -> monoplane bomber -> heavy bomber -> high-altitude bomber -> jet bomber -> stealth bomber

out of scope here maybe, but if there were a post-stealth bomber added in the style of the sci-fi-esque GDR, i'd propose the Aurora Bomber (see also link)

 

[Asterix Rage]

correct me please

I will !

-- Line 1 --

Triplane >> Fighter / ZERO >> Stealth Fighter >> Advanced Jet Fighter

Early Bomber >> Heavy Bomber / B17 >> Jet Bomber >> Stealth Bomber


-- Line 2 --

Early Monoplane >> Jet Fighter / MiG-29 >> Advanced Jet Fighter


Medium Bomber >> Strategic Bomber / B-52 >> Stealth Bomber


Early Jet Fighter (Pentagone) >> Jet Fighter >> Advanced Jet Fighter

i did a little historical reading on some high-level sources on bombers

War Planes History and Civilization 5... Heeeee what can I say? They are not friend actually.
Since the first Bomber, almost each decades have Strategic, Tactical, Light, Medium, Heavy, dive and Long Range Bomber.
Not any generic Fighter/Bomber names will be satisfactory from a Historical point of view.

Let's stick on the game. Gameplay is everything here.
Units appellation must be simple, must express the (linear) progress of strength, and must avoid confusion with destination.

I look forward to read all your suggestions (But please, play EAW at least once before)

i'd propose the Aurora Bomber (see also link)

Where is the .fxsxml model for it?
Also I don't think there is room to insert an other Bomber

 

[Tekamthi]

War Planes History and Civilization 5... Heeeee what can I say? They are not friend actually.

I think something loosely accurate can be approximated here. Some abstraction and generality is necessary of course, but reference to significant historical developments is what makes civ great.

Substantively, my suggestions amount to 1) changing "early bomber" to either recon or tactical bomber (or maybe something else distinctive of this era other than early), 2) changing "medium bomber" to monoplane bomber, and 3) "strategic bomber" to high-altitude bomber (if tactical bomber isn't used for earlier era).

For fighters, i'd suggest 1) "early monoplane" changed to just monoplane (or monoplane fighter if you were to adopt monoplane bomber elsewhere); and 2) "early jet fighter" changed to just jet fighter, AND jet fighter (ie the upgraded version) change to supersonic fighter....

I don't have an idea just yet for the advanced fighter. edit: maybe "superfighter"? seems to have gained some colloquial usage about the next-gen fighters currently being built.

Since the first Bomber, almost each decades have Strategic, Tactical, Light, Medium, Heavy, dive and Long Range Bomber.

Not true, first era had exclusively tactical and reconnaissance role bombers. Strategic bombing back then was zeps, but not very prominent. Fixed wings generally couldn't carry a heavy enough payload to be used strategically til mid ww2, successful divebomb campaigns notwithstanding. From there you had some major developments in technology and roles that can't easily be classified, but that's ultimately what we're trying to do here. If a prefix is necessary as it seems to be for bombers and fighters, describing the key characteristic of an early unit is better than just calling it 'early'. in this sense maybe just bomber is fine for the first one.

Let's stick on the game. Gameplay is everything here.
Units appellation must be simple, must express the (linear) progress of strength, and must avoid confusion with destination.

I look forward to read all your suggestions (But please, play EAW at least once before)

Gameplay-wise everything works great. I've played it twice now, though both ended in atomic, and I didn't focus extensively on examining how each unit was performing. Are there specific aspects you're interested in feedback on?

Unit-naming doesn't follow that convention for most other VP units, and seems redundant to the way the game rules work anyway. No one's gonna build an earlier unit by accident or something -- maybe I'm not following you here. Generally civ unit-names denote their historical common name or the key characteristic of the innovation they bring to the battlefield.

Where is the .fxsxml model for it?
Also I don't think there is room to insert an other Bomber

I'd look to future worlds mod if you were considering building out the line further, but i agree its unnecessary. If you do though, consider either the FW fighter or bomber.

Anyway thanks for your reply, and for this great mod! Looks like its on its way to being another essential.

 

[Asterix Rage]

UPDATE ALPHA 3

Light update that makes VP(4-17) and EAW (alpha3) good friends together

 

[adan_eslavo]

Also if you want to use full name: P-80 "Shooting Star", then it would be good for consistency to use also:

B-17 "Flying Fortress"
B-52 "Stratofortress"
A6M "Zero"

(all with quotation marks)

 

[adan_eslavo]

Wow, there's polish accent here:

Nice!

 

[Asterix Rage]

there's polish accent

Magnificent modeles. PZL P.11 is the one that inspired me at the very beginning.

French and Russian accent as well :
Mirage 2000
MiG-29
Tu-95
Su-57

And, if I can find the code of "project", there will be an Italian Ferrari:

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79​

 

[adan_eslavo]

On main post I can see that Medium and Early Bombers are same size as the biggest ones. Maybe you should consider slight scaling them down?

 

[Asterix Rage]

On main post I can see that Medium and Early Bombers are same size as the biggest ones

Civ5 graphics engine accentuates the effect of depth. In the pic you're mention, the Medium Bomber looks small because he is far.

All the Air Units are rescaled in EAW ...with my own artistic vision of the thing...
There is a file in EAW called EAW_Fine_Setting.sql where almost all can be set, even the scale of each A.Units.
You can set your own choises if your wish. Be carefull, it's more tricky than it looks, and make sure you are comparing units at the same level of depth.