1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Aircraft in Civ

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Argetnyx, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. Argetnyx

    Argetnyx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,048
    My favorite part of the game has always been when I get planes to do my bidding, they are useable enough in Civ3, but completely useless in civ4...much to my disappointment. While I have been gone from Civfanatics, and even Civ3 (the game itself), I have not abandoned Civ. I have been creating formulas to convert aircraft stats into Civ3 usable numbers Myne Aircraft Conversions. I just had an idea, why not use these stats in Civ5? I've already made optional stats for different altitudes and bombing/attack tactics, so why not use them in a new game with all of these as optional? Yes, there are seperate attack and defense values, but it just wouldn't be realistic without them, now would it?
     
  2. Argetnyx

    Argetnyx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,048
    You could possibly choose what kind of bombing mission you want your aircraft to do...
     
  3. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,271
    Location:
    Sydney
    Good to see you back. :)

    You'll have to explain all those formulas for me. I don't really understand what they represent.

    I do however fervently disagree with the assertion that planes are useless in Civ 4. They are very useful. If you have planes before anyone else, you have a massive advantage. In fact, if you have planes at all, you have a massive advantage. It is just that they can be countered. But that does not mean that they are useless.
     
  4. Argetnyx

    Argetnyx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,048
    Yes, I'm back...for how long is anybody's guess. ;)

    They do not have the bombardment power that they previously had... I'll explain the formulas on that thread, in a sec.
     
  5. Hail

    Hail Satan's minion

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Mother Russia
    yep. in civ4 aircraft was given a support role: to soften up the enemy before an invasion
     
  6. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Samara
    civ4 planes have no bombardment power?
    what do you talking about?
     
  7. Hail

    Hail Satan's minion

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    740
    Location:
    Mother Russia
    aircraft cannot kill
     
  8. Argetnyx

    Argetnyx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,048
    Ever played Civ3? If you had, you would know what I'm talking about.
     
  9. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Samara
    uh that was very long ago.
    maybe civ3 planes were more powerful but civ4 ones are good enough for me.

    what I definitely liked in Civ3 planes were nice shell-holes they made
     
  10. Verarde

    Verarde Pondering Wearing A Hat

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    Northern VA
    I always wanted planes in civ, no matter what civ, to have actual attack and defense and fight each other, not just bombing, or recon, or whatever junk missions they put in there. Like the UU for the Americans, the F-15, is really lame! If it was able to fight bombers or fighters...
    I have no idea what I'm talking about. Hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
     
  11. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    I half agree. Some mods have added some great new options for fighters and bombers such as Fighter Engagement, Port Airbomb and Bomb Buildings. Those should have always been included in my opinion. However when you start talking about altitudes and the likes, you're getting a little too specific. I REALLY don't want to micromanage a massive game like Civ down to that level. Any kind of altitude or elevation option should be left to submarines, where it actually makes a hell of a lot more sense to deploy a sub above or below the Thermocline layer and is a mechanic with an impact big enough to actually be worth micromanaging.

    Altitude options for aircraft make too small of an impact to be worth micromanaging. What's next, flying the bombing/intercept mission yourself? Actually that would kick a lot of ass.
     
  12. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    Oh yeah, I agree, planes should be able to kill naval units.
     
  13. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,271
    Location:
    Sydney
    No, I still don't see any major need to overhaul aircraft. They are largely sufficient in what they do in Civ, although it would be nice if there was no damage limit.
     
  14. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    Vanilla fighter and bomber missions in civ are ridicolously simplistic. The entire air combat system is reminiscent of ground combat in Civ 1 in it's complexity. This is Civ 4, it's time to get with the times.

    First off the fighters are an entirely passive force. They simply patrol in neat little circles until an enemy carries out a bomb or recon mission. Pathetically simplistic.

    With the new air missions available in many mods you can use your fighters to carry out Fighter Engagement missions and actually attack enemy fighters. This adds a much welcomed layer of strategy to air combat. Now you're forced to split your fighters into Fighter squadrons and Interceptor squadrons, which also enhances the use of promotions.

    When I go to war I use my Fighter squadrons (with combat strength promotions) to engage enemy aircraft and sweep the skies for my bombers. Then my Interceptor squadrons (yup you guessed it, Interceptor promotions) settle into orbits around my forward positions to retaliate against enemy bombers and fighters carrying out engagement missions of their own. This is much more realistic and a welcomed injection of strategy to air combat. Furthermore, with limited number of air units in cities and carriers, you'll soon find that Forts are suddenly EXTREMELY valuable and worth building, therefore resurrecting one of the most useless tile improvements in the game.

    Secondly, Vanilla bombers. While they achieve their objective, they are still also ridiculously over simplified. With the addition of new missions such as Port Airbomb, Bomb Buildings and Bomb Production they also add a new dimension of strategy.

    With Port Airbomb the famous AI strategy of hiding ships in cities, striking out and retreating has been nullified. Port Airbomb allows your bombers (and fighters) to damage and possibly sink a ship in port. Much like in real life, a ship while in port is extremely vulnerable to this attack; thus the chance to sink. This new ability has made safe ports a strategic resource in their own right, and added pressing urgency behind defending your ports so your ships can be repaired.

    Bomb Buildings allows bombers to attempt and destroy a random city building. This is a tactic reminiscent of World War II and most recently, Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sometimes hitting an enemy where it hurts doesn't neccesarily mean destroying units.

    Bomb Production allows bombers to strip away progress made on a city's build queue. Again, a very realistic operation that has great strategic value.


    In my opinion air combat is pathetically simplified in Vanilla civ. While I don't want to micromanage a war I would like to have some strategic choices available to me aside from Intercept and Bomb unit/tile. This is Civ 4 already, not Civ 1.
     
  15. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,271
    Location:
    Sydney
    Maybe it's just me, but I don't want aircraft, or any military aspects, for that matter, to be all that complicated. Simplistic 'bombard this', 'intercept around here' and 'reconnaissance there' is fine for me.
     
  16. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    To each his own, definitively. People want greater depth in different areas of the game. Maybe Civ 5 could offer 2 play modes: a tactical mode that increases the depth of combat and a standard mode that is pretty similar to vanilla civ. I forget what game I used to play that had a very similar feature.

    Personally I'd love to see civ emulate more realism in modern warfare. Modern wars are waged on an incredible amount of different layers, and while not all should be represented (even that is too much micromanagement for me), there's a few that I think should be. I love wars in the modern age with the features of the newest mods, it forces you to think smarter and to 'peel the onion' layer by layer.
     
  17. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,271
    Location:
    Sydney
    Tactics = bad.

    No, there shouldn't be a tactical mode.

    And I think any large expansion of the use of aircraft would encroach on that forbidden territory of tactical elements.
     
  18. Takhisis

    Takhisis Would-be overnight hero

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    31,087
    Location:
    up yours!
    I'd really like it if land and air units could interact the same way as they do in Magic: the Gathering. For non-MtG players, in the game, creatures with flying, let's say dragons can only be blocked by other creatures with the same ability, but creatures with flying can be blocked by any creature.
    If this were copied onto civ, it could mean that air units could attack land/sea units but they couldn't be attacked by those same units (a dragon can attack land creatures but you can't hit back except when it swoops dow on you and gets within your reach)... I think that explains it pretty well.
     
  19. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    Again, I think the existence and content of these forums is proof definite that the vast majority of Civ players don't agree with your view Camikaze. People want more depth to the game, in practically every area to include combat. My bet is, they're gonna get it either thru Civ 5 or a clone.

    While I respect your opinion, I fail to see why you refuse to accept the option of allowing different playmodes for different players. Why must the rest of us suffer just because you want a dumber Civ?
     
  20. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,271
    Location:
    Sydney
    I certainly don't want a dumber Civ. I want Civ 5 to be much more complex than Civ 4. It's just that I do not want tactical elements dominating a strategy game. And I don't want military elements dominating an empire building game.

    My consternation comes from the fact that a lot of the ideas presented for the next game would make it even more tactical, and even more of a military game, which are two things that are moving away from where the game should be.
     

Share This Page