air intercepters question

[SPQR300]

next question: if a tile is covered by SAm Infantries and intercepting aircrafts too, then what happens? Will only the aircraft try to intercept, or will the SAMs try to intercept too if the airplane fails? (I guess no, but I will test tomorrow, I am just too tired now)

 

[Bushface]

Despite the foregoing theories, for me the outcome of air attacks is very simple to calculate whatever defence is present. Attack with a Fighter or Bomber - lose the aircraft. Attack with a Jet Fighter - it gets damaged. Attack with a Stealth Bomber - about 80% successful, 19% damaged, 1% loss. No, I don't have exact figures to back these up, but I'll bet I'm not far wrong. As I have whined in many threads, my computer hates me and always uses loaded dice to hand me the dirty end of the stick, to mix a metaphor.

 

[kommie]

Anybody know what is the effect of a damaged fighter going on a bombing run or being on an intercept mission? Are the chances to bomb or intercept reduced? What are fighter/bomber strengths used for anyway, since air units dont attack each other directly?

another quick q, slightly off topic: I find it strange that you cannot base a bomber on a carrier. They can only be based in cities, is this correct? Makes their usefulness somewhat limited if fighting an inter-continental war.. (i know you can base them in friendly AI cities).

another quick q: mostly offtopic . I recently saw the option of airlifting a spy from inside friendly AI territory, although didnt get a chance to use it. Anyone know how this works and what is required to use it?

 

[Artanis]

Despite the foregoing theories, for me the outcome of air attacks is very simple to calculate whatever defence is present. Attack with a Fighter or Bomber - lose the aircraft. Attack with a Jet Fighter - it gets damaged. Attack with a Stealth Bomber - about 80% successful, 19% damaged, 1% loss. No, I don't have exact figures to back these up, but I'll bet I'm not far wrong. As I have whined in many threads, my computer hates me and always uses loaded dice to hand me the dirty end of the stick, to mix a metaphor.

Another poster came in here a couple days ago making a similar claim, and found that reinstalling the game - but not applying the patches - fixed it. I have no idea why it fixed it, but you might try that just to see what happens. At worst you will have lost an hour uninstalling and reinstalling everything.

Anybody know what is the effect of a damaged fighter going on a bombing run or being on an intercept mission? Are the chances to bomb or intercept reduced? What are fighter/bomber strengths used for anyway, since air units dont attack each other directly?

another quick q, slightly off topic: I find it strange that you cannot base a bomber on a carrier. They can only be based in cities, is this correct? Makes their usefulness somewhat limited if fighting an inter-continental war.. (i know you can base them in friendly AI cities).

another quick q: mostly offtopic . I recently saw the option of airlifting a spy from inside friendly AI territory, although didnt get a chance to use it. Anyone know how this works and what is required to use it?

Damaged Fighter:

I have no idea if this affects the chances of success of the mission, but I can only assume that it makes the aircraft more likely to be shot down if it does get intercepted (since dealing, for instance, "60% damage" will be fatal to a plane with only 40% of its hp left).

I really don't know what the strengths are for either. The only thing I can think of is that they're related to whether or not the craft is successful in an unintercepted bombing run (Fighters get "your Fighter has failed to destroy the <improvement>!" a LOT more than Bombers). Any other effects are obscured by outside factors, like differing intercept rates between the various units.


Bombers on Carriers:

Remember that the Bombers ingame aren't the sort of "Bombers" you see on TV...they aren't A6s or A10s or bomb-laden Harriers or F18s. The ingame Bombers are more like B17s or B52s...aka "really frickin' huge" Bombers that (Doolittle raid aside) simply do not work on Carriers. Using a Jet Fighter to bomb stuff is more like the sort of "bombing from a Carrier" that we see all the time today.

That doesn't make Bombers useless in intercontinental war though, as like you said, you can simply base them from AI cities. You can also just dump all your Bombers and Stealth Bombers into your beachhead city/cities after you invade.


Spy Airlifting:

I've never tried it myself, but from what I've read around here, I think the city has to have an Airport in it, and works just like airlifting one of your units (except you can go to one of the enemy's cities).

 

[Snerk]

Someone established that a stack of SAMs on a tile doesnt increase the chance of intercepting first attacking plane. It remains on 40%

But, can someone test:

1, If spreading your SAMs out on sourounding tiles increases the chance of intercepting?

2, If you have a fighter and a SAM on a tile, will the SAM try to intercept if the fighter failes?

I would try it myself but im not quite sure how to do it, however i suspect it would have to be done in worldbuilder somehow.

 

[SPQR300]

Someone established that a stack of SAMs on a tile doesnt increase the chance of intercepting first attacking plane. It remains on 40%

But, can someone test:

1, If spreading your SAMs out on sourounding tiles increases the chance of intercepting?

2, If you have a fighter and a SAM on a tile, will the SAM try to intercept if the fighter failes?

I would try it myself but im not quite sure how to do it, however i suspect it would have to be done in worldbuilder somehow.

I have exactly the same questions ^^

 

[Bushface]

To the tune of "Comin' through the Rye" :-

If a SAM can see a fighter / Coming to his tile
Will he shoot at it at once / Or will he wait a while ?
Will he hit the dratted thing / Or miss it by a mile ?
And can the fighter hit him first / and wipe away his smile ?

If a fighter sees a bomber / Will it intercept ?
Has its pilot skill enough /Or is he quite inept ?
These are secrets that the program / To itself has kept.
How deep the muddy waters are / Into which I've stepped !

 

[Snerk]

To the tune of "Comin' through the Rye" :-

If a SAM can see a fighter / Coming to his tile
Will he shoot at it at once / Or will he wait a while ?
Will he hit the dratted thing / Or miss it by a mile ?
And can the fighter hit him first / and wipe away his smile ?

If a fighter sees a bomber / Will it intercept ?
Has its pilot skill enough /Or is he quite inept ?
These are secrets that the program / To itself has kept.
How deep the muddy waters are / Into which I've stepped !

Aah, Like music for the soul.
Shakespeare eat your heart out!

 

[Meffy]

Ah, laddie, yer bardic soul shines an' that I tell ye treu.

 

[Snerk]

Someone established that a stack of SAMs on a tile doesnt increase the chance of intercepting first attacking plane. It remains on 40%

But, can someone test:

1, If spreading your SAMs out on sourounding tiles increases the chance of intercepting?

2, If you have a fighter and a SAM on a tile, will the SAM try to intercept if the fighter failes?

I would try it myself but im not quite sure how to do it, however i suspect it would have to be done in worldbuilder somehow.

did anybody find anything out concerning this?

 

[Bushface]

I am currently fighting a war against an opponent who has one, two and in one case three fighters defending each of his cities bar one outlier, some of which are close enough together that the fighter's zones of coverage overlap. He also has lots of SAM units. I have Jet Fighters and Stealth Bombers (aren't I the lucky one ?) and am keeping notes of the outcome of various raids.
So far the score is: SB raids successful, 29 (incl.3 vs. the outlier city, which has just 1 SAM): intercepted, 24, all by fighters except one by a destroyer, which was the only case where my SB was shot down although another took 91% damage. Jet raids successful 6, intercepted 8 of which one was by a SAM (jet shot down) and the rest by fighters. The enemy has tried one raid with his only bomber, which my jet intercepted. Now there is no way of knowing how many enemy aircraft tried to make interceptions but failed, but I much doubt that the quoted probabilities are true. After all, if a fighter has a 50% chance of intercepting and a SB a 50% chance of evasion, then even cascading the probabilities (i.e. allowing more than one defender per attack, which does not happen for land units) an SB ought to meet with success at better than the 29:24 ratio that I have experienced so far. The war continues, though, and it will not surprise me if the odds change as I grind the enemy back into the dust where he belongs.
On another aspect it appears at first glance that a damaged aircraft will have the same chance of getting through as its undamaged colleague but will do less damage because of its reduced strength and, naturally, will be more likely to be lost if interception is made. So far, I have had damage reported vaying between 5% and "shot down", despite the combatants always having the same strengths, but I haven't attempted any sorties using damaged aircraft.

 

[Snerk]

So i would appear that stacking fighters on intercepting patrol does not increase the chance of intercepting each attacking plane.
And SAMs can intercept if a fighter fails.
Im just reaching flight in my own game now and ill try to make myself some excperience about the subject.

 

[Bushface]

So i would appear that stacking fighters on intercepting patrol does not increase the chance of intercepting each attacking plane.
And SAMs can intercept if a fighter fails.

I do not agree. The only ways that I can have suffered so high a proportion of interceptions are (1) several fighters have attempted interception of each raid, or (2) the chances given for interception and evasion are not those actually applied. I suppose I should admit the existence of possibility (3), that as usual I get rotten luck whenever chance is involved.
About SAM interception I am less sure. Perhaps the AI chose to try interception by SAM before risking an aircraft (and on one occasion got lucky), perhaps this is always the case (this depends upon how the program is written), perhaps there were no fighters available on this occasion. Who knows ? When I have finished my current game, I might actually set something up in World Builder with cities offering various degrees of mutual protection and with assorted defences against my swarms of various attackung aircraft.
But I was seriously peeved to lose a Stealth Bomber to a Destroyer, with its reputed 30% interception chance which ought to have become 15% vs. Stealth. However, the ship did have a strength of 30+10% against the SB's 20, which could account for the amount of damage caused. Question: if a Destroyer is actually in a city (this one was not) does it offer any defence against air attack, because it doesn't against ground forces ?

 

[Jarrod32]

I can answer that last one, because it happened to me in a recent game.

A destroyer stationed in a city CAN intercept aircraft that are attempting to bomb the city. Think of it this way...the destroyer is on the tile that is being attacked by aircraft...

 

[Bushface]

@Jarrod32 - thanks: I'll add that to my data store (aka memory). So if a Destroyer can defend a city against an attacking aircraft, why can't it do so against, say, a Spearman ? Dare we hope that some day in the distant future there will be consistency ?

 

[Roland Johansen]

@Jarrod32 - thanks: I'll add that to my data store (aka memory). So if a Destroyer can defend a city against an attacking aircraft, why can't it do so against, say, a Spearman ? Dare we hope that some day in the distant future there will be consistency ?

The only way the destroyer could defend against the infantry would be to shoot at the infantry while it is entering the city. This would result in damage to the city. Therefore, I think that a destroyer should leave the city tile when the city is taken by spearman, instead of being destroyed. It would leave the harbor when the city is taken.

By the way, I think that the interception chances of a destroyer against aircraft should also be reduced when the destroyer is inside a city. The destroyer cannot maneuver when inside the harbor of a city and thus is somewhat of a sitting duck (think Pearl Harbor). To represent this, it should get increased damage when bombed inside a city (at present it can't even be hit) and should be less capable of intercepting aircraft.

Also aircraft should leave the city when the city is taken and should rebase to another city instead of being destroyed.

 

[Kerrang]

@Bushface, because the Destroyer and Spearman cannot attack each other naturally.

It would appear that, given the experiences you have related, we can make some educated guesses as to what is going on. I will try to do some testing once I get home this evening as well.

Here are some of the possibilities as I see them:

1) Each unit capable of intercepting unit gets a chance, in some order, to intercept an incoming unit, but once they have intercepted an incoming air unit they cannot attempt to do so again in the same turn. The order of intercept may be determined by one of the following:

a. The effective range of the intercepting unit.
b. The initial strength of the intercepting unit.
c. The current strength of the intercepting unit.
d. The type of the intercepting unit, combined with one of the above options, or some other undetermined factor (build order, etc.)
e. The order is completely random.​

2) Each unit capable of inetercepting gets a chance to intercept each incoming unit regardless of whether they have done so previously. The same possible orders for intercepting exist, with an additional possible factor that all unused units (or all units of a type) will be cycled through before any previously used units.

3) Only one intercepting unit per attack gets a chance to intercept the attacking unit, but only if it has not intercepted yet in the turn. The order possiblities remain the same as above, however, there are some possibilities regarding whether or not the intercepting units percentages stack.

a. Percentages do not stack.
b. Percentages from the same type of intercepting unit do stack, but have an upper limit to the total.
c. Percentages from the same type of intercepting unit do not stack, but additional units of the same type add a bonus to the unit, with an upper limit to the total.
d. Percentages from all intercepting units in the city stack in the same manner as b. above.
e. Percentages from all intercepting units in the city stack in the same manner as c. above.​

4) Same as 3) above, but intercepting units can attempt to intercept multiple times in a single turn.

Hopefully, experimentation will remove some of these possibilities, as there is still a wide range here. It would appear, however, that in all of these possibilities, except for #4, it is advisable to place multiple intercepting units in a city to increase your chances of intercepting attackers. Even if #4 is correct, it is not unreasonable to place multiple intercepting units in a city, as there is always the possibility that the interceptor will be shot down by the attacker.

 

[Snerk]

yes yes! These are precisly the issues im not clear on regarding interception.
But it will take som testing getting to the bottom of this.

 

[Bushface]

Also aircraft should leave the city when the city is taken and should rebase to another city instead of being destroyed.

That would result in the enemy's last city holding virtually all his defensive fighters, which you cannot attack and very few of which get shot down, even if you attack his fighter-defended cities with Jet fighters, and similarly for all other aircraft which have not been shot down. Let's leave it as it is: ships and aircraft in a captured city get destroyed.
Now an update on air attack results from my game.
Jet fighters - successes 6, intercepted 4 (all by Fighters). No losses. N.B. enemy has no jet fighters and (now) no Oil. Hurrah !
Stealth Bombers - successes 47, interceptions 26 (of which 14 by Fighters and 6 by SAMs, plus 6 Stealths shot down - 3 by Fighters, 1 each by SAM, MI and Destroyer)
This is a 55% success rate. However, 8 of the raids were on minor cities which had no possible air defence and 9 on cities with just one SAM each, one of which manged to intercept two raids.Also note that in such combats as occurred not one enemy aircraft was lost, but one was shot down by one of my SAMs when it tried a raid instead of just defending. Lots more have vanished when thei bases were captured, I am happy to report.

 

[Roland Johansen]

That would result in the enemy's last city holding virtually all his defensive fighters, which you cannot attack and very few of which get shot down, even if you attack his fighter-defended cities with Jet fighters, and similarly for all other aircraft which have not been shot down. Let's leave it as it is: ships and aircraft in a captured city get destroyed.

The problem is not with my suggestion, but with the fact that only so few airplanes get shot down. This fact actually makes the wars in the late game significantly easier for the human player since the human player is better in preserving his/her units. It's actually very strange that something like 1 in 10 of your stealth bombers get shot down against the most sophisticated air defence in the game, namely jet fighters. And this has nothing to do with the special qualities of the stealth bomber as the normal bomber will also survive almost all of its bombing runs against a fighter defence.
People do not complain about this because it typically helps them to win the game. You would see many complaints about this if the AI was capable enough to use this unbalancing fact.