Aircraft rant\ideas

[SoulSkorpion]

Aircraft could do with some major improvements. Most of this can be done in Civ 3, but a few crucial elements can't.

All aircraft have a fixed range. No operation can ever exceed that range and all operations actually have a physical path which the unit moves along. In other words, no more re-basing to the other side of the world. The range of an airstrike or recon or whatever would therefore be limited to half the aircraft's movement quota (since it has to get there and come back), whereas re-basing could be at the full range of the aircraft since it's a one-way trip. Possibly there could be a choice of which base to land at if there is more than one in range.

Since all air missions have an actual path, they can all be intercepted by air superiority. Under ordinary circumstances fighters assigned to interceptor duty should almost always succeed in reaching and engaging attackers, with a battle then taking place; compare with an ordinary land battle - the attacking unit attacks the defenders who fight back. Perhaps certain offensive missions\aircraft have a reduced chance of detection, but an attack "in broad daylight" should have almost no chance of going unanswered if there are defensive aircraft in range. Naturally, the more aircraft the defender has on patrol duty the greater the chance of detecting an attacker under any circumstances since each patrolling fighter has a chance to detect the enemy and once one does, they all see them.

[rant]The F-117 Nighthawk is not a stealth fighter. It's an attack aircraft, designation be damned.[/rant]

Fighters can be assigned to escort other aircraft. A major task of fighters is protecting other aircraft (especially escorting bombers in World War Two).

The "airlift" ability is removed, and replaced with transport aircraft. You load the units onto the transport, then re-base to a friendly airstrip or city. This way the quantity of hardware you can move is not limited by some arbitrary fixed value but instead by the actual resources at your disposal. Combined with the above, air power becomes even more important since you can't easily airlift forces into newly captured territory unless you can prevent your transports from being intercepted. Air transports can be implemented in Civ 3, but most of the advantages of the idea are the whole limited range\interception idea. Although it does give the enemy the slightest chance of destroying the cargo aircraft if they catch them on the ground after offloading.

Transport helicopters can be assigned to extract foot units in addition to being able to deploy them. The usual air interception provisos remain - you can't just dawdle into enemy airspace without sufficient escort!

The situation of paratroopers vs helicopters: realistically, paratroopers are dropped by aircraft with further range than helicopters and so can be dropped futher into enemy territory. Airdropping should therefore be a mission that transport aircraft can carry out when they have paratroopers loaded; naturally, transport aircraft should have much greater range than helicopters. There-and-back ranges apply, as does interception. Possibly, airdropping could have a lower chance of detection than other more overt missions.

 

[Darwin420]

Mobile Anti-Aircraft batteries should be allowed, too. That way you can set up an "AA Shield Network" to make it really difficult for your enemies to launch air campaigns against you. This would be especially handy as you wouldn't need an air force of your own to protect against enemy air.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here are my suggestions:

1) Re-base should be a free move and not take an entire turn. This would tremendously increase the usefulness of air units.

2) After a certain tech(Radio?) you can assign fighters/bombers to 'close air support' for a particular unit. AS long as that unit is fortified/attacks within range, the aircraft will provide more powerful bombardment(more accurate targetting data, spotters). If they attack, they your units help in the attack. If they are attacked, same still goes.

3) You can assign fighters to escourt bombers on their sorties.

4) Nuclear bombers should be units that can only be used once for 'dropping the bomb'. They would cost less than equivalent missle systems. They are also avaliable earlier.

5) Transport Helicopters should be able to extricate troops as well as deliver them to the field. They can also transport Artillery(okay, it was light guns in Korea, but it was still arty).

6) Attack Helicopters should be able to have the same 'close support' abilities as Fighter/Bombers. They should also have mundo bonuses vs. armor. They should also be able to base more places.

 

[Colonel]

To begin with, an F-117 is a stealth Fighter- Fighter in this sense means attack aircraft. First off to imporve aircraft you need to have better ranges, a Jet Fighter can go further then it can in Civ3, of course you also need to improve aircraft carriers in order for air units to be better. As for Helos, create attack and transport, transports would be able to drop off troops or pick them up and attack choppers would cover. The Cargo plane is a great idea.

Last note, sir_schwick- the nuclear bomber idea is good but one minor alteration, instead of the whole planes being lost you would create two units, The bomber and the Atomic Bomb or Tactical missle which could be dropped out of the plane.

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree with SoulScorpion's suggestions!

 

[sir_schwick]

Last note, sir_schwick- the nuclear bomber idea is good but one minor alteration, instead of the whole planes being lost you would create two units, The bomber and the Atomic Bomb or Tactical missle which could be dropped out of the plane.

If we do that, then we should do a more detailed strategic bomber and MAD system. Here is what I am thinking:

You can load up bombers with 'nuclear payloads' to make them nuke bombers. Now you can assign them to an enemy city for MAD response(anytime strategic warfare) or leave them in reserve for a standard attack. Their range should be mroe than normal bombers, that is why I suggested a unique unit.

 

[searcheagle]

To begin with, an F-117 is a stealth Fighter- Fighter in this sense means attack aircraft.

I don't want to take the site off topic, but I want to address this quick.

The F in the designation in the F-117 is not a correct designation. F designates fighter. A fighter, by US military designation is a vehicle with at least limited Air-to-Air combat ability. The Stealth "Fighter," so called because of the F designation, small size, speed, and that rumor had it the Stealth Fighter was actually a fighter, I believe all are reasons why this is called a fighter. Because of its role as limited air-to-ground the best designation for it is Attack.

"Although it is commonly called the Stealth Fighter, The Nighthawk should have received an "A" designation. It has no air-to-air role whatsoever, and the "A-for-Attack" designator is in fact prefectly made for tactical ground-attack aircraft like the F-117. The topic has been discussed to death among enthusiasts, but there seem to be essentially two possible reasons for the assignment of an F-designation"

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_F117

 

[searcheagle]

After reading the suggestions of SoulSkorpion and Sir Schwick, I find myself in more agreement with Sir Schwick. Both of these ideas illustrate the problems in the air in Civ 3 with similar ideas to fix the problem. Here are my comments.

Here are my suggestions:

1) Re-base should be a free move and not take an entire turn. This would tremendously increase the usefulness of air units.

This would be overpowering. However, I think that some units should have the ability to move during the same turn and attack, with in a range limit. There should also be able to end the bombing raid at a different city then it starts, provided it is within range.

2) After a certain tech(Radio?) you can assign fighters/bombers to 'close air support' for a particular unit. AS long as that unit is fortified/attacks within range, the aircraft will provide more powerful bombardment(more accurate targetting data, spotters). If they attack, they your units help in the attack. If they are attacked, same still goes.

I have long wanted Close Air Support (CAS), although I want it to be treated more as a zone of control system where the units attacks any unit that enters into its zone.

3) You can assign fighters to escourt bombers on their sorties.

Until a system like this is introduced, air combat will seem completely random, since there is very little that can be done to change a bombers success. Escourting fighters and better interception of bombers is a MUST.

4) Nuclear bombers should be units that can only be used once for 'dropping the bomb'. They would cost less than equivalent missle systems. They are also avaliable earlier.

I guess I would perfer an Air Dropped Nuke unit that could be loaded on ANY bomber. This would then affect the range of the bomber.

5) Transport Helicopters should be able to extricate troops as well as deliver them to the field. They can also transport Artillery(okay, it was light guns in Korea, but it was still arty).

Arty should be divided into two catergories- Light/Mobile Artillery which can be air lifted and choppered in. This would take the place of the current unit "Artillery." Self Propelled/Radar Artillery could not be air lifted and would remain the same.

6) Attack Helicopters should be able to have the same 'close support' abilities as Fighter/Bombers. They should also have mundo bonuses vs. armor. They should also be able to base more places.

Agreed and they should be better then simple bombers and fighters. CAS Aircraft (Speciality unit) and Attack Helos should be the best CAS units out there.

 

[MattII]

How about fighters andbombers costing different space amounts, for carriers at least,because a bomber is much larger than a fighter. Another idea I had was air superiority over enemy territory. The bomber escort problem could be solved with creating airforces (armies for aircraft) with the fighters acting in the role of close air support rather than bombarding. Maybe there could be a new order (extraction) that would be equipped to some aircraft (helicopters) to allow them to retrieve ground units.

 

[Colonel]

The first post mentioned cargo planes, an idea to add is createing mobile, sort of runways like the ones we built in Vietnam, one moment we had an airfield then ext flat ground,

 

[ironpawn]

All aircraft have a fixed range. No operation can ever exceed that range and all operations actually have a physical path which the unit moves along. In other words, no more re-basing to the other side of the world. The range of an airstrike or recon or whatever would therefore be limited to half the aircraft's movement quota (since it has to get there and come back), whereas re-basing could be at the full range of the aircraft since it's a one-way trip. Possibly there could be a choice of which base to land at if there is more than one in range.

I think it would be better to go back to a CivII approach on that, give the planes there movement points, they can bomb if they can't get back to base they ditch out and you loose the plane. Just because you bomb from a certian Airbase, doesn't mean you should have to land back at it. I.E. during WWII on deep bombing missions into Germany, it was not on-common to have the bombers fly on to the air fields in Africa. or look at the Doolittle raid- Bombers on carriers crash landing in china, korea...

 

[SoulSkorpion]

I think it would be better to go back to a CivII approach on that, give the planes there movement points, they can bomb if they can't get back to base they ditch out and you loose the plane. Just because you bomb from a certian Airbase, doesn't mean you should have to land back at it. I.E. during WWII on deep bombing missions into Germany, it was not on-common to have the bombers fly on to the air fields in Africa. or look at the Doolittle raid- Bombers on carriers crash landing in china, korea...

The Civ1 (haven't played Civ2; I assume it's the same) approach is what I had in mind. The thing is, with that method the scenario in which an aircraft attacks a target even though it'll run out of fuel is very easy to happen, but it's very rare in the real world. I was thinking that a better way would be a Civ3-style goto interface, mouse driven with the default destination being the same as the start and the ability to alter the flight path. I was going to suggest that originally, but I thought it's a bit too complex.

...

About aircraft taking up different amounts of space: I thought about carrier based stuff, and that's one way of doing it. The other is to simply have some aircraft unable to land on carriers, as it is in the real world. To get technical, you can't land a non VTOL\STOL aircraft on a carrier without modifying it to have a landing hook and that sort of thing, but many aircraft have varients with that modification. As far as I know you can't modify a C-130 or an A-10 to land on a carrier, however (in other words there doesn't need to be carrier-based fighter types in addition to equivalent land-based types, but there should be carrier-based strike aircraft).

...

Runways (airbases) already exist in Civ 3. They should probably be modified so that they behave more like fortresses than colonies - ie they take time for workers to build rather than cost a worker to construct.

 

[rhialto]

I think aircarfat carriers should come with an integral airwing that is a part of the unit. It should neither be required nor allowed for you to build a separate airwing to use the carrier effectively.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think aircarfat carriers should come with an integral airwing that is a part of the unit. It should neither be required nor allowed for you to build a separate airwing to use the carrier effectively.

This is probably the best solution I have seen. Here is how it could be implemented:

Carrier(WWII Kind) - Comes with an 8-unit flight wing. Not sure if they should all be just a generic 'Carrier Craft'. If so, these would be weaker for ground stuff, but great for anti-ship.

Super-Carriers(Nuclear powered) - Comes with a 14-unit flight wing. Obviously more powerful aircraft, but not sure on details.

 

[searcheagle]

The Civ1 (haven't played Civ2; I assume it's the same) approach is what I had in mind.

You are right. As far as I can remember, the Civ 1 and Civ 2 styles of movement for aircraft was identical.

About aircraft taking up different amounts of space: I thought about carrier based stuff, and that's one way of doing it. The other is to simply have some aircraft unable to land on carriers, as it is in the real world. To get technical, you can't land a non VTOL\STOL aircraft on a carrier without modifying it to have a landing hook and that sort of thing, but many aircraft have varients with that modification. As far as I know you can't modify a C-130 or an A-10 to land on a carrier, however (in other words there doesn't need to be carrier-based fighter types in addition to equivalent land-based types, but there should be carrier-based strike aircraft).

I like rhialto's Idea for aircraft, where the roles are integrated into the ability of the Carrier. I think for the most part, the carriers should auto-upgrade when new technology develops. This would ensure that the Carrier would not become obsolete. Only major advances such as a SuperCarrier or a Nuke Powered Carrier would require a new Carrier unit to be built. To upgrade the rest of the time the player would have to research techs such as Naval Avaition Attack/Defense/Anti Sub/ Anti Air.

To run air missions, the player clicks on the carrier. The Carrier can launch say 10 air missions. These could include:
*Combat Air Patrol- Searching for MiG and controlling the Airspace,
*MiG CAP- Go to a city or region and try to get the their fighter to come up and fight or take them out on the ground. If you try to take them out on the ground, their Anti-Air could take you out.
*Recon-Patrol the surround areas (much more then in Civ3).
*Close Air Support- Take care of ground units that try to interfer in the air.
*Anti Sub Patrol-Search for Submerged and surfaced subs and take them out.
*Air Transported units-Drop transported units on land via Carrier airplane or Helicopter

All of these missions should be able to be done by Carrier.

@SoulSkorpion-For the purposes of Historical accuracy: If the military wanted to and found the need for it, I'd bet the military could land the A-10 on a carrier. The A-10 is already a short takeoff and landing vehicle. A hook probably would have to be added. The A-10, I would think, I already has the internal strength to handle landing on a carrier.

As for the C-130, it has already landed on an aircraft carrier. I believe that first happened in 1960. A USMC KC-130F landed on a carrier as part of a test of concept excersize. While the landing was a success, the C-130 was found to be to boxy and was rejected as the Carrier-on-board delievery Aircraft by the Grumman C-2A Greyhound.

The Requirements for Carrier Operations are:
1. Strong structure-The plane has to survive a "Controled Crash" of landing.
2. Slow approach speed-so the plane isnt going to fast when it is approaching the Carrier. This in current practice is about 180 MPH.
3. Smaller size-So it doesnt take up too much valuable deck and hanger space onboard.

The hook can be added to pretty much any aircraft and that isnt the crucial aspect of a carrier aircraft.

...

Runways (airbases) already exist in Civ 3. They should probably be modified so that they behave more like fortresses than colonies - ie they take time for workers to build rather than cost a worker to construct.

I like this idea. I would like it even more if their were Combat engineers, which could be brought the battlefront and build the runways on the frontlines.

 

[sir_schwick]

I'm trying to remember how many of the carrier based aircraft were good for CAS Ground Operations. Also, Wild Weasal should be a mission type that land-based(the rest) aircraft can utilize. ASW is a definite in for carrier and land based aircraft.

It would be cool if there was an integrated 'Special Forces' unit which included helicopter and spec ops battalion. They could be used for certain operations like temporarily disabling support facilities, airbases, radars, etc.

 

[searcheagle]

I'm trying to remember how many of the carrier based aircraft were good for CAS Ground Operations. Also, Wild Weasal should be a mission type that land-based(the rest) aircraft can utilize. ASW is a definite in for carrier and land based aircraft.

It would be cool if there was an integrated 'Special Forces' unit which included helicopter and spec ops battalion. They could be used for certain operations like temporarily disabling support facilities, airbases, radars, etc.

The US Navy has quite a few aircraft that were capable of Close Air Support. The AD/A-1 Douglas which entered service after WWII was ideal for CAS. The A-4 Skyhawk, Also by Douglas was much appreciated by ground forces. Bell AH-1 Cobras and OV-10 Broncos operated by the Marines were also carrier capable.

Several other navy aircraft were quite important in recent years as well. The F-4 Phantom (and its variant the Wild Weasal F-4G) are both classified as CAS I believe. F-18 I think is CAS as well. The F-14, famous as a fighter, served an integral role in the recent US conflict in Afghanistan in the begining days as the essential Forward Air Contoller between the men on the ground and other planes in the air. I think that means it would be classified as CAS.

So, the navy is quite familiar with launching CAS missions off of carriers, especially to the Marines who they are used to dealing with.

Sir Schwick, I was trying to develop in my system these types of ability, without adding micromanagement.

Would it be too much micromanagement to add anti Radar Planes, like the wild weasels? When they would come, other planes could (assuming a successful attack) be more success in their attacks cause they dont have to deal the the SAMs and AAA.

 

[sir_schwick]

Cool. I had no idea that carrier based aircraft were good at CAS. I wasn't suggesting adding new plane types. There would be a strange extrapolation made that whatever air missions you needed from a carrier, the aircraft would be there. And yes, Wild Weasal missions would do better against AAA and make it easier for others to not worry about AAA.

 

[SoulSkorpion]

@SoulSkorpion-For the purposes of Historical accuracy: If the military wanted to and found the need for it, I'd bet the military could land the A-10 on a carrier. The A-10 is already a short takeoff and landing vehicle. A hook probably would have to be added. The A-10, I would think, I already has the internal strength to handle landing on a carrier.

As for the C-130, it has already landed on an aircraft carrier. I believe that first happened in 1960. A USMC KC-130F landed on a carrier as part of a test of concept excersize. While the landing was a success, the C-130 was found to be to boxy and was rejected as the Carrier-on-board delievery Aircraft by the Grumman C-2A Greyhound.

Oh really? I stand corrected.

...

I prefer the format of a carrier being a transport for air units, personally. I don't like the idea of a carrier always magically having a full complement of whatever aircraft it likes with no possibility of it being depleted. It's the same as airlifting not requiring transport aircraft; I prefer the greater level of control.