Airbases

[marco.negri]

I think Airbases are actually a big advantage, in fact in GOTM 8 I used it for the first time, and I got a silver medal.
But I also think that as long as everybody knows and use it, it is not unfair.
In addition, as starlifter correctly points out, it considerably speeds up late game, which is always the most boring one.
The only unfair thing is that people ending the game by conquest won't be able to use it, but the scoring system is so unbalanced that even without Airbases, conquerors won't ever be able to get the top places, so it doesn't make a big difference.

 

[starlifter]

The only unfair thing is that people ending the game by conquest won't be able to use it

It is folly to try and force an "equal" comparison of early conquest and "full game" Civ II GOTMs. Early conquers also never get Freight, Superhighways, or Airports... and if properly used, all these directly result in a higher score (happy citizens=2 points... these all create more happy citizens!). Early conquerers also do not get the Refrigeration advance, which allows farmland... which directly affects score (more citizens=higher score).

So any discussion of airfields on the basis of early conquest must also include all score-enhancing techs, improvements, and Settler/Engineer capabilities.

The only way to even attempt a comparison of early conquest and normal full games is to eliminate the population side of the comparison. This is embedded in the Civ II score, of course, and would require a major rethinking of the scoring system. I've actually suggested several such ideas in prior posts.

 

[starlifter]

by Matrix:

You can't convince me that they were ment as replacement of railroads and farmland and that after you can build airbases, you'll never have to build railroads and farmland again...

I don't think the programmers knew this!

in fact, I have never tried to convince you or anyone that airbases are a "replacement" for RRs, Roads, or even irrigation. You can search my non-GOTM related posts in other forums and see that, too.

In fact, I've said again and again that airbases are NOT RR's or roads, but have the movement allowance of 0 when entering/exiting an airfield. There are many disadvantages to Airbases.

But there are some advantages, too. One is the timesaving of micromanaging hundreds/thousands of extra late-game turns of engineering. And in this very forum, I've seen some people whine long and howl loudly about the length and tedium of the late game. Airfields relieve that somewhat. And without airfields, nothing of susbstance will change except more effort... the land will be irrigated/farmed if not airfielded. The population will be the same. Except.... when an airbase is used "on a hill" (or Mtn) where normal irrigation/farming will not yield the extra food token.

About "convincing" you about the programmers... I don't need to convince you, LOL... you're probably not ready to accept it even if I could magically get Brian Reynolds to post it in red letters. But I will say this... for whatever it might help you... the Airbase characteristics were specifically programmed into the game of Civilization II, and not added by either the original two Civ II programmers, nor by the set of three game programmers in Civ II MGE. The Airfield characteristics were a compromise... deliberate... because of other game considerations, and could easily be removed in a patch. So the choice of how to use airbases, like all things on one's civ II game, are up to the player. Naturally, people can decide whether or not to use certain features.

I don't think the programmers knew this!

LOL, I won't try and convince you otherwise. But try programming it yourself, or decompling the game . Or ask them.

The main tweak that could be done (and is suprememly easy to do!) is simply adjust the number of engineer turns to construct an airfield. IMHO, two is probably too low, esp. on difficult terrain. But Brian chose to do it the way he did, and all the testing and game balance worked out pretty welll overall.

Something else I personally would have programmed would have prevented airbases from being constructed on 2+ movement terrain... until the terrain is transformed. Easy to do in the coding, but not done.

As I've pointed out in prior posts, we (in the US Air Force) make airfields. They always have roads infrastructure, and almost have a RR structure in them, to them, around them, and for them. Further, the land is transformed (if necessary) and becomes excellent cropland. It is even irrigated and farmed in many cases. Not only in the US, but in Africa, Asia, many islands, etc. I fly into these airfields in the course of my job, BTW. So it is not unreasonable by any stretch to assume you can have such representations in Civ II.

In the end, it's irrelevant to me... When I first started a GOTM, I was not using airbases. But rest assured, I was farming the land. I'll simply make more engineers and do the same exact job, then kill the engineers and allow the empire to grow to the exact same size and happiness, except for the "hill & mtn" citizens. Airfields are a simple convienience in late game when the enemy civs are crushed and it is time to make the world grow. Unless used on a hill or mtn, an airfield yields no results that a Democracy can't take advantage of with irrigation/farmland.

As for my own opinion, I don't care, personally. But it is to my own advantage to eliminate airfields, though, based on the whining I hear about how long it takes to build an empire. Aand as with many prior discussions about other things going back to June (when I joined), my discussions are based on what is good for everyone as a whole.


So bottom line.... the only "legit" hit on the abstraction of airbases as implemented in Civ II is the low-cost award of extra food in hills and mountains, when other game mechanisms that should be able to duplicate the effect (e.g., irrigation and farmalnd) cannot. It IS worth noting that you can irrigate/farm a hill and get 3 food, though... but not true in a Mountain!

 

[starlifter]

by Chofritz:

Well the it is also written in the civ 2 manual that you can always save before you enter a hut and if you don't like the outcome you can always reload the game. Neither this have been adjusted in any patches of civ 2, so we're free to use that, or are we?

A specious analogy. Reloads are not a defect, and Matrix has said we are not to reload when playing a GOTM. Similarly, airfields were allowed.

This isn't right I think. Because you can get two extra food on banana which you can get in no other way. It is however still the supermarket that gives the 50% boast..

You just don't understand the Civ II algorithm in the Civ2.exe file. And that's OK .

by Starlifter:

LOL, what are you talking about? Of COURSE SS finishes give the best score. People that build WONDERS get the best scores. People that have more than one CITY have the best scores. And you point is .... ??
------------
Reply by Chofritz:

And people that conquers the world DOES NOT get the best score... Understand now? Got any more questions you want me to awnser?

If you can keep you panties out of a wad, the point is that you wish to simply change the scoring system of Civ II, and further, are trying to achieve a specific advantage. Month by month alteration until you get a pre-conceived result is downright silly. Better to eliminate population from the score entirely, or simply go to a "fastest victory" scenario. You cannot compare apples to oranges, LOL.... a better solution would even be to have two divisions... regular and bloodlust early conquest. But Matrix has not indicated he's willing to do it, so that's the end of that!

So no, I do not understand your point because it is illogical in the first place... it is absed on a faulty premise and wallows in numerous contradictions (truly, no offense ).

I know very well that airbases only give extra score on hills because of the extra food (also on banana and oasis I think

You are only looking at the "result" without knowing what an airbase actaully does, foodwise.

Now look at the difference, do you understand what I mean with HUGE adventage? How many times faster is it? Let's say 4 times faster, what if we had a bug in the the game making settlers cost 10 sheilds instead of 40, maybe you can see what I mean,

It is a matter of semantics. As I've pointed out since June, airbases take 2 engineer turns to build. Irrigation and Farmland take 6. But the score is based on population, and in the end, in late game, the difference is almost nothing... exept a saving in "real-time".

Early conquest players are NOT disadvantaged, especially in a "huge" way as you state. That is a red herring... If one uses Democracy/Republic and celebrations, the final score will remain the same, except for "airbase hill" citizens (one point for each that is supported by a supermarket, one HALF of one if no supermarket) and possibly "airbase mountains" (one HALF a point, on average, for each mtn airbase).

Well first of all i don't think matrix would have to check all the games for airbases even if they were not allowed

LOL, those are not my words... those are from the discussions of people long before I even knew about GOTMs.... go back and read all the Airbase threads. I have, but it takes time .

In GOTM 7 a guy called Richard or something had the fastest finish, when the game could be downloaded you (Starlifter) saw his game where he had probably used the Save and Reload function to find the last civ. He was later removed from the hall of fame (at least he isn't there anymore).

LOL, you need to learn your facts before posting, dude.... the issue with Richard was not Save and Reload. you are just making that up. Try reading the posts. The issue was the fact that there were AI settlers STILL ALIVE at the time he thought the game was over! He did NOT finish the game, since he had not eliminated all the AIs... and since "Early Conquest" implies conquest, Matrix had to determine what to do.... and BTW, the interpretation and decision was Matrix's, not mine.

So before getting hysterical about airfields and altering the scoring, take a more objective look at the underlying issues. Airfields are a convenience, and do not significantly alter the score (except for some hill/mtns). And certainly not a "HUGE" differences, as you assert. Plus, airfields are equally available (like SHs, Airports, Farmland, Supermarkets, etc.) just like any other technology.

There is zero advantage to anyone when the game begins... but the game results DO depend on your decisions and strategies, including choice of early/late finish.

 

[starlifter]

It looks like the scoring system is very different in Civ III:

 

[Sevorak]

You are only looking at the "result" without knowing what an airbase actaully does, foodwise.

Now you've got me curious, starlifter. What DOES an airbase do foodwise? I know it doesn't duplicate farmland and irrigation precisely because it will enhance food output from Spice and Fruit, for example, on terrain that cannot be farmed. Plus, there's the +1 food to mountains thing that no other terrain improvement can cause. Yet it doesn't stack with farmland or irrigation.

So what does it do?

-Sev

 

[starlifter]

Now you've got me curious, starlifter. What DOES an airbase do foodwise? I know it doesn't duplicate farmland and irrigation precisely because it will enhance food output from Spice and Fruit, for example, on terrain that cannot be farmed. Plus, there's the +1 food to mountains thing that no other terrain improvement can cause. Yet it doesn't stack with farmland or irrigation.

So what does it do?

LOL, I knew someone might ask that . I now have license for a 10,000 character post, hehe....

A. An Airfield does exactly the following (with respect to food), in the following order... no more, no less:

1. Acts as IRRIGATION on any land terrain in the game.
2. Acts as FARMLAND on any land terrain in the game.

(It really is that simple)


B. The confusion is primarily because of 2 things:

1. People may not really understand IRRIGATION and FARMLAND.
2. Engineers/Settlers are seemingly not "allowed" to IRRIGATE and FARM all terrain in the game.


So the real question is not about airfields, but about basic IRRIGATION and FARMLAND!



Lets take this by example. Start Civ II, in a game that has engineers in it. Move an engineer to an unimproved chunk of Plains or Grassland. Click the ORDERS pull down menu. Look at the options. An option will be Irrigation. This is explicitly programmed by the game designers. now irrigate the land and go for 3 turns. The land will now be irrigated. Go back to the ORDERS menu. Now note the "I" option. It has changed to "Improve farmland". With it, you can make farmland.

Repeat the above example on an unimproved mountain. Note that the "Build Irrigation" option is greyed out. The game designers did not want you IRRIGATING mountains.

Repeat the above example on an unimproved hill. Note that the "Build Irrigation" option is not greyed out. The game designers did want you IRRIGATING hills (if you chose to do so). You can also make Farmland in hills. But hills have a special restriction (which arises from an unrelated issue that I won't discuss at this time)... if a MINE exists, the effect of mining is LOST as long as the irrigation exists. You cannot have both irrigation and mines at the same time.

Repeat the above example on an unimproved jungle-fruit. Note that the "Build Irrigation" option is changed. You CANNOT irrigate! It is simply not an option. But you can "Change to Grassland". The game designers did not want you IRRIGATING jungle-fruit. HOWEVER... you can transform to plains, or change to forest and change to plains ('irrigate' the forest), or Change to Grassland, make a forest, and change to plains. So guess what? You will have Wheat... which can then be irrigated and farmed.


Now from these examples, you can likely deduce the exact nature of irrigation and farmland, if you have it in a city radius and used a Supermarket.

But for completeness, this is it:

Irrigation (not the ORDERS --> "i" key, but actual IRRIGATION) simply adds one food to terrain types that the programers and Sid Meier chose to allow. Farmland applies the 50%, rounded down bonus. If a terrain produces one food, 50% of 1 is .5, which is ZERO. Hence, farmland in a desert does not increase available food even with a supermarket. Ditto for Jungle-Gems. Ditto for forests.

All this is "programmed" type by type in the RULES.TXT file. Here is a summary of the standard Civ II terrain production:

Desert, 1,2, 0,1,0, yes, 1, 5, 5, yes, 1, 5, 3, Pln, ; Drt
Plains, 1,2, 1,1,0, yes, 1, 5, 1, For, 0,15, 0, Grs, ; Pln
Grassland, 1,2, 2,1,0, yes, 1, 5, 2, For, 0,10, 0, Hil, ; Grs
Forest, 2,3, 1,2,0, Pln, 0, 5, 5, no, 0, 5, 0, Grs, ; For
Hills, 2,4, 1,0,0, yes, 1,10, 0, yes, 3,10, 1, Pln, ; Hil
Mountains, 3,6, 0,1,0, no, 1,10, 0, yes, 1,10, 6, Hil, ; Mou
Tundra, 1,2, 1,0,0, yes, 1,10, 1, no, 0, 0, 0, Drt, ; Tun
Glacier, 2,2, 0,0,0, no, 0, 0, 0, yes, 1,15, 3, Tun, ; Gla
Swamp, 2,3, 1,0,0, Grs, 0,15, 6, For, 0,15, 0, Pln, ; Swa
Jungle, 2,3, 1,0,0, Grs, 0,15, 6, For, 0,15, 0, Pln, ; Jun
Ocean, 1,2, 1,0,2, no, 0, 0, 0, no, 0, 0, 0, no, ; Oce

In Mountains, you see a grouping "no, 1,10,0" which means respectively, "Irrigate, bonus, #turns, ai-irrigate". This means the ORDERS --> "i" key will be greyed out. It means the irrigation will cause 1 (That's RIGHT.... ONE!) food (Assuming one COULD irrigate!). It means it would take 10 turns to irrigate (Assuming one COULD irrigate!). It means the AI will never, ever try to irrigate a mountain.

Now the only issue remaining is how we irrigate & farm terrain, like a mountain, that does not have the ORDERS --> "i" option available, but for which Sid Meier decided you could indeed irrigate and farm. The answer is AIRFIELDS.

Look at Mountains... If Sid had wanted a mountain never to be irrigated under any circumstances, he could have used the "no,0,0,0 " option like he did for ocean and GLACIER terrain!! Instead, he alllowed a back-door (meaning not well known) way of irrigating a mountain.... a late game airfield!!!

Look at Forests.... "Pln, 0, 5, 5," This means the forest will be changed to Plains in 5 settler turns, and the AI will not EVER try to "irrigate" (Change to Plains) a forest unless it is in Monarchy or above.

Look at Hills... "yes, 1,10, 0," The hills can be irrigated in 10 turns and will give a 1 food bonus. The AI will not EVER try to Irrigate hills.


Farmland/Supermarkets are hard-coded. If a tile has the farmalnd or airfield flag set, a 50% bonus, rounded down, is applied. This occurs AFTER the irrigation bonus is applied. Thus, irrigating plains gives 1+1=2 food. Farmland is 2*50%=extra food (2+1=3 TOTAL food). For a mountain, 0+1=1 (possible with only an airfield). The airfield's deliberate farmland bonus is : 1*50%=0.5=0 extra food (1+0=1 TOTAL food).

Look at Jungle-Fruit.... a 4 food base output. If you "i" the tile, it becomes grassland. So you must use the airfield (available only in late game). Then: Irrigation is 4+0=4 (you get no jungle irrigation effect.... look it up: "Grs, 0,15, 6, "). But guess what... the farmland effect applies: 4*50%=2 extra food (4+2=6 TOTAL food). Note what happens if you convert the Jungle to Plains... you get Wheat, and teh result is EXACTLY the same in the end: 6 food! So there is no special advantage, or any net gain by using airfields even on Jungle-Fruit. Exactly the intended effect occurs.

On your own, examine Glaciers... Tundra... Swamps.... Oceans... You'll see everything is specifically designed and set for the intended game balance a certain way. But the designers of Civ II chose to allow you (and scenario makers) to alter these items, if you wanted.... the RULES.TXT.

Since this is a long post, I know most people will never read nor understand it, and that's OK. But this is an easier part to see and understand than the actual game programming (decompilations). It clearly shows how Matrix or anyone else can simply alter the "programming" to OVERRIDE the choices that Sid Meier and company have made for years.... simply revise the rules.txt and require that all GOTMs are played with it. Quite trivial, LOL.

So, Airfields are NOT a cheat, even when used for irrigation! And the "bug" part of airfields is not in their behavior (which is knowingly and deliberately set by Sid & Co.), but in their relative construction time (two turns). IMHO, additional programming should have been done to increase construction time in difficult terrain. But it is hard coded to 2 turns. Oh well. A slight difference of opinion between me and the game's designers, LOL.


BOTTOM LINE: The Airfields behave exactly the way Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds intended them. Indeed, they chose for them to behave that way! The behavior is programmed, but can be altered in the RULES.TXT by anyone who desires to substitute their judgement for the designers of the game. (even you can change it, Chofritz, ).

Questions?



This post is 8,454 characters long...

 

[Sevorak]

Now the only issue remaining is how we irrigate & farm terrain, like a mountain, that does not have the ORDERS --> "i" option available, but for which Sid Meier decided you could indeed irrigate and farm. The answer is AIRFIELDS.

Look at Mountains... If Sid had wanted a mountain never to be irrigated under any circumstances, he could have used the "no,0,0,0 " option like he did for ocean and GLACIER terrain!! Instead, he alllowed a back-door (meaning not well known) way of irrigating a mountain.... a late game airfield!!!

I don't think the late game airfield is so much the intention, as it was to let a CITY built upon a mountain to get one food out of it....

In fact, now that I think of it, I'd classify the airfield's effect as the same as the presence of a city on the affected terrain - especially on Hills, you can start mining, then start a city, and get the same 3 food (with Supermarket)+4 shields you get from mining and airbasing a hill.

More thoughts - this would explain the use of no,0,0,0 on Ocean and Glacier - Ocean because you can't build cities there, as the pleasant message tells you, and Glacier is rare enough so that cities there will not be a common occurrence (since Glacier happens only at the poles). Mountains, on the other hand, are common enough so that a city might be founded on one - in WWII.scn, Gibraltar is an example of this.

It almost makes me wonder if cities themselves aren't just glorified airbases with better graphics and some special abilities (like, um, building things). I mean, look at the attributes the airbase and city share in common - automatic road/railroad, automatic irrigation/farmland (but not mining!), defend one unit at a time instead of dying in a stack (but offering no defensive bonus beyond that of the terrain), aircraft can land there....

-Sev

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, what if a city IS just a glorified airbase? I mean, both cities and airbases duplicate irrigation without the little blue crossy lines showing up, and a city only shows it when there's irrigation to the lower right of it, which could be a graphical thing attached to the big buildings plunked down on top of the airbase. What if the irrigation and farmland with an airbase was never fixed because every city is founded on an airbase, and fixing airbases' irrigation and farmland would break cities? What if airbases are just a lazy shortcut, and not fixing them is a lesser-of-two-evils type thing? What if this is just a crazy theory, no matter how logical it sounds? What if I'm just totally delirious? Oh well.

 

[starlifter]

You have a very observant eye! And in a very broad sense, Airbases and Cities are similar. However, they are not at all the same thing internally. Cities are stored and manimulated in their own sequential 256 element matrix, the contents and manipulation of which is handled by separate parts of the Civ II algorithm. Some of the same airfield and city effects are indeed the same, but airfields are handled separately, and are stored essentially as a terrain "improvement" in the terrain map.

However, both look to the attributes of the terrain type to determine the modifiers for the resources. Had the designers chose to do so, additional modifiers could have been ascribed in the Airfield logic, and given/removed any airfield ability they desired. As you pointed out, they chose not to allow an airfield to "mine" the tile... which jives with our "real life' airfield construction abstraction.

Contrary to how most posters assume, in fact "real life" airfields do indeed add road and rail to the airfield, and more often than not, the surrounding area is used as farmland, unless it is the desert, like in Saudi Arabia. But mines are not constructed as a by-product of "real life" airfields. So in fact, I'm not opposed to the choice of the designers in allowing a farmland abstraction of airfields.

And about roads/RRs... the ones constructed as part of an airfield are normally not used for general trade and commerce... so it makes total sense that you must actually construct a road and RR abstraction in order to gain the full trade and GOTO benefits of an airfield tile. I think they did an amazing job... but due to the common misperceptions about airfields, they should have made a few more comments to help people understand. But then, hehe, I've done it for them ....

BTW, it is interesting to note that in Civ III cities cannot be constructed on mountains .

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by starlifter
BOTTOM LINE: The Airfields behave exactly the way Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds intended them. Indeed, they chose for them to behave that way! The behavior is programmed, but can be altered in the RULES.TXT by anyone who desires to substitute their judgement for the designers of the game. (even you can change it, Chofritz, ).

Indeed as Sevorak has said: that's probably because of cities that can be built there. My bottom line is: airfields shouldn't act as farmland.

Originally posted by starlifter Contrary to how most posters assume, in fact "real life" airfields do indeed add road and rail to the airfield, and more often than not, the surrounding area is used as farmland, unless it is the desert, like in Saudi Arabia. But mines are not constructed as a by-product of "real life" airfields. So in fact, I'm not opposed to the choice of the designers in allowing a farmland abstraction of airfields.

So do you think that in real live we might better make one big airfield on our land? I suggest not to bring real life into the subject; in real life, airfield have nothing to do with farmland and railroad.

Originally posted by starlifter
This post is 8,454 characters long...

Good job, my boy!!

 

[Chofritz]

I don't care if the airbases are working as road, railroads, irrigation and farmland. However if they do they should not be 4 times faster to build... And yes I makes a HUGE difference. For example:

You have buildt 10 new cities in your final WLTPD celebration. We'll assume that every square around them are plains. You have 10 turns before your SS arrives, all cities are size 3 so they will grow as long as they have food. Let's say you'll need to "fix" one square every turn otherwise the city will stop it's growth. Using airbases it'll take 20 enginers to get the work done every turn, using road, rail, irrigation and farm it takes 90 enginers to get it done. With only 20 enginers you wont be able to help more than 2 cities using the normal way. And that's a hell lot of points.

Remember that the GOTM formula rewards speed, and if you can do something 4 times faster don't tell me it's not a HUGE adventage...


Radio, expires the effect of road, railroad, irrigation, and farmland

 

[starlifter]

Remember that the GOTM formula rewards speed, and if you can do something 4 times faster don't tell me it's not a HUGE adventage...

LOL, that is exactly what I'm telling you. At least for a well played game . Almost no net difference in score! But there is a big advantage in how long in REAL time it takes to play the game without late game airfields.... no airfields=more tedium.

1: Everyone at that point (in your example) in the game has airfields available. There is no net advantage at all.

2: Shadowdale never built airfields except on hills, and won GOTMs with regularity, even against airfield builders.

3: The example you cited only requires a change in one's planning... and more micromanagement in "real-time". The same irrigation will be done, but done sooner (with an ultimate sole minor net impact on gold).... the extra engineers can cost 3 gold (plus compounds, if applicable) per turn in large completed cities... nothing at all (net) in growing cities. The only significant net effect for a typical well played game is a lot more micromanagement in order to accomplish the results on schedule. Some gold may be affected too, but nothing major.

4: A skillful player can even recover the gold mentioned above, and could fund the entire cost in a single 16,000 to 32,000 beaker FT advance. This is worth all of 5 points in a typical 6,000 to 11,000 points in a typical GOTM. The recent SQRT minimizes even this. One needs to fully understand the math of how such things propagate through a well played game. But the final answer to the exercise is practically no net impact on the game score by using airfields in well played game....
5: The designers calmly and deliberately chose for the Engineer to take 2 turns to build an airfield. This is not a bug, although I personally would have added several days to the time in difficult terrain, and maybe a turn or two on normal terrain.

6: In battle, there is a difference in irrigated, farmed, airfielded terrain. So in the big picture, airfields does make defensive and pillaging sense.

 

[starlifter]

by Matrix:

So do you think that in real live we might better make one big airfield on our land? I suggest not to bring real life into the subject; in real life, airfield have nothing to do with farmland and railroad.

LOL, no, the logic is non-sequitor. I'm simply pointing out that in real life, we do indeed build a road and RR infrastructure with most airfields. I've flown our of hundreds of them around the world, and the gas is brought by train or truck to almost all of them, for instance. I've watched the US military hack out new airfields. When done, many are also farmed with various plants, and often these have irrigation water, fertilizer, crop dusting, etc. And remember that all units, roads, improvements,etc. are an abstraction (as explained in guides and manuals). And finally, even an airfield does not give all the benfits fo roads/RRs.

Be that as it may, I've explained the easier parts of the programming and why (and how) the designers did what they did. BTW, cities are not airfields any more than mosquitos are ducks.

 

[Serg]

I didn't know the effect of airfields before I seen GOTM8 results. But I like this. It is a pity that I have not used this feature early. It may helps to build the great Civ even at bad map condition.

 

[october]

Forgive me for being ingorant, but could someone please explain to me the airbase cheat and how it works? I have hardly used airbases.

Shouldn't airbases be built away from your cities near the front lines of your fighting? What advantage is there, strategically, of building airbases within your city limits?

 

[Serg]

Originally posted by october
Forgive me for being ingorant, but could someone please explain to me the airbase cheat and how it works? I have hardly used airbases.

Shouldn't airbases be built away from your cities near the front lines of your fighting? What advantage is there, strategically, of building airbases within your city limits?

Airbases may be built anywhere on land and be used for landing the air units as cities or aircrafts. But the airbese hase the other feature - it gives several bonuses for tile in city zone. See the GOTM *.sav from the leaders.