Airports, Aircraft Buildings, and Aircraft Abilities

[Soryn Arkayn]

So all you'd need, then, are hundreds of those planes to transport a single unit of Mech Inf or Armor.

The US presently has over 203 C-17s currently in service. An American tank battalion consists of ~60 M1 Abrams. So if the US absolutely had to they could fly over 3 tank battalions at once. And a tank battalion would be equivalent to a tank unit in Civ5.

In Civ5, the Player can build an empire much larger than the US, so it's entirely plausible that the Player's civ would have a lot more than 200 heavy military transport aircraft and be capable of flying entire armoured divisions around the world.

I reiterate: This isn't about practicality or cost effectivess. This is about, "Can tanks be airlifted?" YES, they can.

 

[Peng Qi]

Oh, well yes, they can. I'm not sure what that has to do with airports in CiV though, since there's no way a single airport could accomplish such a task.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Oh, well yes, they can. I'm not sure what that has to do with airports in CiV though, since there's no way a single airport could accomplish such a task.

Airports should be able to airlift any unit in Civ5 -- that's what this is about.

Kabul International Airport is used as to supply Coalition forces in Afghanistan. The Coalition also uses airports in Pakistan.

Your argument is ludicrously transparent and flimsy.

Could any single airport in the world handle 200 planes at once? No, of course not. However, the busiest international airports handles over 1000 planes every day. Therefore, 200 planes would be manageable. Loading and unloading a M1 tank for a C-17 is probably a lot faster and easier than hundreds of passengers and their baggage from a commercial airplane. A C-17 could land, unload, refuel, and take-off in a few hours. In a month, thousands of tanks could be flown across the world. Considering that one turn is at least a year in Civ5, it's not unrealistic or unreasonable to permit units of tanks to be airlifted anywhere in the world.

I'm not claiming that it's practical or cheap IRL. The point is that it can be done. So the "realism" argument against airlifting tanks has no merit.

 

[Peng Qi]

Maybe not, but I think the gameplay argument is the better one anyway. It might be nice to have an airlift option that costs like 2-400 gold or something and can only be used once per turn per civ, but honestly airlifting (and railroads of course) have been OP since their inception.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Maybe not, but I think the gameplay argument is the better one anyway. It might be nice to have an airlift option that costs like 2-400 gold or something and can only be used once per turn per civ, but honestly airlifting (and railroads of course) have been OP since their inception.

So when your "realism" arguments fail, you fall back on gameplay balance?

Airports have been in previous Civ games and the argument that they were "over-powered" was never a popular one. And arguing that railroads are somehow OP is even worse.

It's ridiculous to impose a Gold fee for airlifting because it's unprecedented in Civ5; it would be unbalanced because only wealthy civs could afford to airlift; and embarking units doesn't cost anything (where do their ships come from?), so why should it cost 200-400 gold to airlift a unit?

 

[binhthuy71]

I'm going to chime in my thoughts. I think there are a lot of good ideas here, however, they could use the benefit of simplification. I'm going to offer thoughts based on old mechanics and particularly Civ5 mechanics.

First, they really need an Airbase. There needs to be a way to support a war in a foreign continent without having to conquer a city. Yes, I realize carriers would work too, but I don't think that's always realistic. Perhaps give the airbase the same limit for aircraft as a Carrier. If it's unbalanced, require a Great General to build it rather than make it a general improvement...

The ability for a Worker to create an Airfield (At the cost of the Worker) was added in Civ III Conquests. Your Worker could create an Airfield (By sacrificing the Worker) in one turn on any tile that was not within the borders of another civ. This game mechanic, although I used it ruthlessly, had to have been one of the most OP features ever added to civ: it gave you an instant one-tile improvement with all of the airlift and aircraft basing capabilities of an Airport at the Hammer cost of one Worker. Worst of all, the AI seemed to be largely incapable of using the mechanic.

I agree that the Airfield option would be fun to have in Civ V. You are correct in stating that the cost, at least requiring the sacrifice of a Great General, should be high. My primary argument against adding this option is that absent adding AI capability to use it effectively (And the combat AI in Civ V is already loaded with notable shortcomings) it would become another stick with which to beat the AI.

 

[Louis XXIV]

True, but you can at least make it a small stick. By requiring the sacrifice of a Great General, the opportunities to use it would be rare. I don't think I would let you airlift units from one, that might be a bit much.

Unfortunately, I have no illusions in thinking the AI would use it effectively. The purpose is an intercontinental invasion, which they're already not good at. Building an airbase first strikes me as intuitive planning that logical deduction can't account for. So, yeah, the best option would be to make it overpriced and have limited use. But it would still be fun to use. As an alternative, allowing rebasing in friendly city-states would be an adequate substitute. I'm not sure which would be more unfair, though.

 

[Peng Qi]

So when your "realism" arguments fail, you fall back on gameplay balance?

Airports have been in previous Civ games and the argument that they were "over-powered" was never a popular one. And arguing that railroads are somehow OP is even worse.

What? Wait, you're arguing that railroads have never been overpowered in Civ? Even when they provided infinite movement, resulting in any war always being between every unit controlled by every civ, since all units controlled by all civs were available at a moment's notice all the time?

OK.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldn't add gold to the cost of airlifting because it's an awkward complication and a novel idea that might be difficult to balance. One upt and one airlift per city per turn would help reduce any potential imbalance anyway. After all, you can only move one unit into the city from somewhere else and then both cities can't airlift for the turn.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

What? Wait, you're arguing that railroads have never been overpowered in Civ? Even when they provided infinite movement, resulting in any war always being between every unit controlled by every civ, since all units controlled by all civs were available at a moment's notice all the time?

OK.

Again, you try to shift the discussion to cover up the fact that you lost the previous argument.

This thread isn't about the supposed imbalance of railroads; railroads are fine in Civ5. This thread is about Airports and Airlifting, which should be added in Civ5.

I wouldn't add gold to the cost of airlifting because it's an awkward complication and a novel idea that might be difficult to balance. One upt and one airlift per city per turn would help reduce any potential imbalance anyway. After all, you can only move one unit into the city from somewhere else and then both cities can't airlift for the turn.

There can be exceptions to the 1UpT rule. For example, a newly produced unit can occupy the same tile as another unit garrisoned in that city; one of them has to move before the end of the turn. Also, occassionally when a unit tries moving through another unit's tile, it'll get stuck for some reason and only by moving the original unit off that tile can the moving unit complete it's move.

My point is that if a unit is airlifted into a city, the city shouldn't have to be unoccupied. The airlifted unit should be suspended in an "inactive" state for that turn, and the unit garrisoning the city should be allowed to remain there.

 

[Lexicus]

What? Wait, you're arguing that railroads have never been overpowered in Civ? Even when they provided infinite movement, resulting in any war always being between every unit controlled by every civ, since all units controlled by all civs were available at a moment's notice all the time?

I loved the infinite movement of railroads in Civ III. It made the game must more realistic, in my opinion. Think about it. In WWI the combatant nations were able to mobilize their entire armies--millions of men--in a matter of weeks, because of railroads. America used air and sea logistics to mobilize for the invasion of Iraq, halfway across the globe, in a matter of months.

Contrast this with the fact that on larger maps it can take years to move units across a single nation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

My point is that if a unit is airlifted into a city, the city shouldn't have to be unoccupied. The airlifted unit should be suspended in an "inactive" state for that turn, and the unit garrisoning the city should be allowed to remain there.

I don't see why airlifting needs this further advantage. If anything, it needs disadvantages, not advantages. Requiring the city to be empty makes a lot of sense. It parallels the rule for purchasing units for example. Units built in a city are fine because they can be moved that turn. If airlifted units use up all movement points, it's the same as purchased units. Short of convenience, what justification is there to allow an airlifted unit to occupy the same city as a garrison unit on the same turn?

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I don't see why airlifting needs this further advantage. If anything, it needs disadvantages, not advantages. Requiring the city to be empty makes a lot of sense. It parallels the rule for purchasing units for example. Units built in a city are fine because they can be moved that turn. If airlifted units use up all movement points, it's the same as purchased units. Short of convenience, what justification is there to allow an airlifted unit to occupy the same city as a garrison unit on the same turn?

Do you have some problem with convenience? Whenever anything is improved upon, there's an element of convenience to it.

Requiring a city to be empty to purchase or airlift a unit there does not make any sense whatsoever. That's a ridiculous claim. Your sole reasoning for it is that's how purchasing units works.

I rarely ever purchase units, but I absolutely hate having to move a garrisoned unit to free up the city so I can purchase a land unit. It is a pointless inconvenience and indicative of shoddy game design. If Firaxis had designed it properly so that a purchased unit could stack with a garrisoned unit and remained in-active until the next turn, no one would complain about that. No one complained about that in previous Civ games, because that's exactly how purchasing or drafting units worked. But because it's the way it is in Civ5, Firaxis-apologists mindlessly defend the status quo because they believe that the developer is infallible and always knows what's best for their game.

Allowing an airlifted unit to stack while it's in-active isn't going to un-balance the game. It's not going to effect it in any way.

And no, airlifting doesn't need both advantages and disadvantages. Were there any disadvantages to airlifting in previous Civ games? NO! Not that I can think of. There were some reasonable limitations -- but no "disadvantages".

"What justification is there to allow an airlifted unit to occupy the same city as a garrison unit on the same turn?"

Quite simply, the best justification there can be for anything: Because it's better. That's why.

It's baffling how you seem to support the idea of including Airports and Airlifting in Civ5, but you inexplicably want it done in such a way that would require minimal effort by Firaxis. Allowing airlifted units to occupy the same tile for one turn would probably require a minor modification to the game code -- a very minor one because units can already occupy the same tile as long as they're different types of units. Apparrently you think that's too much to expect from Firaxis.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, my sole reasoning is actually that's how stacking units always work.

 

[King of Prussia]

Well I haven't seen this get directly answered yet in this thread but how many units can you airlift into a city? There are many possible solutions and these are the ones I can think of.

The city can only recieve an airlifted unit if the city is empty.

A unit can be airlifted in but will be inactive for that turn as said above.

A unit can move out of the city after being transported. (maybe be allowed to attack?)

You can airlift units in or 1 tile around the city allowing the city to recieve more than one unit per turn. Mix between Civ 4 and Civ 5.

Any thoughts or other options?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I suggested the "city empty" option. It's most consistent with the rules as they exist now and the options allowing several airlifts per turn strike me as too powerful.

 

[King of Prussia]

I suggested the "city empty" option. It's most consistent with the rules as they exist now and the options allowing several airlifts per turn strike me as too powerful.

I to agree that having more than one airlift would be a little much. Seeing that you took the city, you should have it secured. but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow a unit to be airlifted in but inactive for that turn and of course having no effect while a unit is in the city.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's just oddly different from everything else in the game. When you cash rush a unit in a city, it doesn't just stay inactive (which it is), you need to have the city empty. One unit per tile means one unit per tile. I don't see why airlifting would change this mechanic when nothing else does.

 

[King of Prussia]

It's just oddly different from everything else in the game. When you cash rush a unit in a city, it doesn't just stay inactive (which it is), you need to have the city empty. One unit per tile means one unit per tile. I don't see why airlifting would change this mechanic when nothing else does.

That is a good point and I am sure if we did get airports back with airlifting, that would be how it worked.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

It's just oddly different from everything else in the game. When you cash rush a unit in a city, it doesn't just stay inactive (which it is), you need to have the city empty. One unit per tile means one unit per tile. I don't see why airlifting would change this mechanic when nothing else does.

That is so unbelievably dumb and illogical. It defies the very principles of progress and improvement. Can you imagine what would've happened to human civilization if through history people had adherred to the philosophy of "Why change anything?" Nothing, that's what; because people would never have invented agriculture, and continued to be nomadic hunter-gatherers, because why change?

Just because presently Civ5 is designed so that a city must be empty to purchase a Land unit, doesn't mean that it should remain that way forever. Anyone can recognize that it is an unnecessary inconvenience; and IMO it's evidence of sloppy game design. It would take little to no effort to modify the game mechanics to give purchased units a one-turn exception to the 1UpT rule -- but apparently that's asking too much of Firaxis. After all, why should a game be more convenient?

Perhaps for the sake of making Firaxis' programmers' jobs as easy as possible, why not discard the mouse and GUI entirely, and instead require the player to type all commands in programming language.

Contrary to what certain players might think, it's not our responsibility to make our ideas and suggestions as easy as possible for Firaxis to implement; the goal is to improve the game. When purchasing units, the 1UpT rule is an needless frustration and should be modified to make purchasing units more convenient.

Returning to airlifting: A unit should be allowed to be airlifted to a city even if another unit is occupying that tile. The airlifted unit will be inactive for the remainder of the turn after it's been airlifted, and the next turn one of the units will have to be moved from the tile -- no different than if a new unit was produced in the city.

It's simple, logical, balanced, and convenient.

That's how a destination city would function without an Airport. If the destination city had an Airport, multiple units could be airlifted there in the same turn, and each unit would be inactive and stack until the next turn.