1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Airports, Aircraft Buildings, and Aircraft Abilities

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Soryn Arkayn, Oct 15, 2011.

  1. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Hyperbolic statements are hyperbolic?

    I'm talking about making the game consistent with the rest of the game. If they change everything, I'll take back all my comments. However, a special exception for air lifting is completely illogical. I would find the clash in styles to be grating. It would be an inconsistency that would suggest design by committee. It would be like having everything in the art deco style they have now and then add some photographs for a couple of random resources.
     
  2. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    So basically what you're saying, Louis XXIV, is that because purchased units strictly adhere to the 1UpT rule, which is clumsy and inconvenient, then airlifting units must function the same way? Why? Explain the "logic" of that.

    If I'm guilty of using "hyperbolic languange" then you're obviously guilty of circular logic. What you're saying is "it is the way it is, and cannot be changed, ever."

    If that's the case, then WHY does this Idea & Suggestion section even exist? Because if nothing can or will change in Civ5, then suggesting new ideas and discussing them here is utterly pointless.

    Your dogmatic philosophy and prohibitive position against changing or improving anything in Civ5 is inconducive to this topic and to the Idea & Suggestion section of this forum in general. Forshame.

    Moderator Action: Stop making personal attacks and tone down your criticism. Please read our site rules regarding trolling (particularly with regards to being overly critical in your disagreement); you are in violation of them.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  3. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Germany
    Dear Soryn Arkayn, please read what Louis did write: He did write about *consistency*!

    As I see it, both of you are right! In the current state of the game, it simply matches the rules if cities have to be empty to receive an airlift.
    This doesn't mean that these rules can not be changed. But then, for the sake of consistency, change it everywhere they would apply!

    --

    An other point, and this is not about consistency, is balance. I'm totally against multiple airlifts into a city, even with airport in it. This would render railways totally useless!

    Even more, for the same reason, I insist in my proposal, that even vor recieving *one* unit per turn, an airport in *both* cities should be needed!
    It is more realistic.
    It is more strategic.
    It is less "dumped down".

    (And no, I don't see the necessity of an "united front of airport supporters"! I am totally convinced, that it is absolutely possible to want airports back, but have different ideas of how exactely they should work -and to state this belief!)
     
  4. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    You seem to be suggesting that Airports couldn't render railroads obsolete and useless, and that players might demolish their roads and rails. That's ridiculous! :crazyeye: Any player that did that would be incredibly stupid, and would realize immediately it was a terrible mistake.

    Demolishing roads and railroads would be crazy because it would sever connections between the player's capital and cities, which would disastrously impact Happiness, Production, and Wealth. Railroads alone provide +25% :c5production: if used to connect a city to the capital.

    Airports would be most useful for transporting units from one continent to another, instead of having to embark units and transport them across the ocean, which can take more than 10 turns. Inter-continental travel doesn't effect railroads at all.

    Roads and railroads are still essential to move units around the map, that'll never change. If you try to move units off-road, they'll be reduced to their base movement rate, and crawl across the map. Regardless if an Airport can receive multiple airlifted units per turn, it'll still be faster to move units by rail over short-to-moderate distances.

    I do not agree that both cities should need Airports to airlift units. That's not how it worked in previous Civ games, and it's not how it works now. Presently, an unlimited number of Air units can operate from any city, and there are no airports -- that's unrealistic and unbalanced, but no one is screaming about that (another bull$#!t "it is the way is" situation). IRL aircraft can land on hastily prepared airstrips; fully functional Airports are not necessary. That's why it will be realistic and balanced if a city without an Airport can receive only one unit per turn; whereas a city with an Airport should receive unlimited units per turn.

    Regarding balance, that's all relative. Airports are intended to improve gameplay and make transporting units faster and more convenient. There's no denying that a civ with Airports will have a distinct advantage over civs that don't. It's ludicrous to try to balance Airports in that respect. If you nerf Airports there's no point in implementing them at all.
     
  5. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Germany
    Where did I suppose, that players should demolish their railroads? Indeed, that would have been ridiculous! :crazyeye: ...:rolleyes:
    Please, believe me, I *know* about the other benefits of railroads (production, happiness, wealth). I don't play the game since yesterday. So, granted, "useless" was exaggerated. (Maybe heavily exaggerated...)

    But my whole point was only about unit movement and airlifts. And *here* unlimited airlifts negate the transporting ability of an developed railroad system - and not only oversea.
    Even with railroads, your units might need 8 turns or more to reach the other side of your constantly growing empire. Therefore, it is necessary to deploy some garrison units, to defend potential aggressors on "the other side" of your current war.
    With unlimited airlifts, you may deploy a whole defending army in just two turns! This, with no tactical necessity like the control of your line of communication. True: you *have* your airport to establish this line! But the airport must not make all these other interesting tactics obsolete.
    This is true for oversea invasions even more: Why bother with ships to defend your line of communication at all? As long as you managed to establish a beachhead, it will need a blink of an eye to have your whole army ready to invade. Secure your sea routes? Build ships to achieve this? Pha!

    Your idea of hastily prepared airstrips allowing landing operations is valid for sure - but unfortunately only for light troops. I'm pretty sure: a C-5 Galaxy loaded with tanks is *not* able to land on them!

    --

    This made me laugh (no offense intended): Quote: "That's not how it worked in previous Civ games, and it's not how it works now." - spoken by a person who offended other people of being to conservative and "denying" progress !
    Remember (and this is my main point!): armies are *much* smaller in CiV than they have been in Civ4! A game mechanism that worked well in former games (with multiple units per tile and stacks of doom) may not work with 1upt!
    Maybe it is *needed* to advance and change some rules - even if the world was so bright in the good, old days... ;)

    --

    (By the way, I *did* recommend limited amounts of air units in a city - with airports to allow higher numbers. So, "no one" is not quite correct.)
     
  6. Gamewizard

    Gamewizard Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    I think airlifting should be 1 unit per city per turn, and maybe increased to 2 with an airport. The only way I think that it could be unlimited is if there was a gold cost to airlifting, based off of hammer costs of the unit.

    And to the point that purchasing units is inconvenient because you have to move a garrisoned unit out of the city first...I think this prevents players from purchasing multiple units in one city per turn. That would be unbalanced, and thus why 1 unit per city airlifting per turn makes more sense, IMO.
     
  7. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    I've explained this earlier, but I'll reiterate it to clarify my position that a city with an Airport should only be able to receive unlimited airlifts per turn, but should only be able to send one unit per turn to another city, just like in previous Civ games. For example, if the Player only has one city on their home continent with an Airport, it can only airlift one unit per to any other city, regardless if the destination city has an airport or not. If the Player has five cities with Airports, one unit can be airlifted from each city per turn. If the destination city doesn't have an Airport, it can only receive one unit per turn; if it has an Airport, it should be allowed to receive one unit from each of those five cities.

    If Airports abided by your restrictions, there'd never be a reason to build more than one Airport per continent, because a city on another continent could only ever receive one unit per turn -- and only if it had an Airport. That doesn't make sense and is too restrictive; in undermines the usefulness of airports.

    When playing against the AI, a smart Player will garrison their cities and defend their borders to deter an attack. It would be crazy to deploy all of your units elsewhere and leave your borders undefended, and rely on airports to airlift units back there if and when the AI attacked. Regardless, if a Player decided to build airports to facilitate rapid strategic re-deployment, I don't consider that unbalanced at all. Building airports in multiple cities is a significant investment in time and resources; it should provide significant benefits, such as ability to airlift units to conflicts anywhere in the world.

    The usefulness of Naval units in Civ5 is an entirely different discussion. I love having a powerful navy, even though it's usually unnecessary. I rarely ever lose embarked units to enemy ships because I always have naval superiority, and I usually sink all of their ships prior to invading their land. Airlifting isn't about avoiding the dangers of transporting units across the ocean, it's about reducing the amount of time it takes.

    As I explained, a city without an Airport can only receive one unit per turn. That means that if the Player conquers a city and establishes a beachhead, that city can only receive one unit per turn. So NO, your whole army will not be ready to invade "in the blink of an eye" because the beachhead can only receive one airlifted unit per turn. The Player will have to hold that city until resistance ends, and then the Player can annex it and either construct an Airport or purchase one immediately. When that city has an Airport, the number of units it can receive per turn is determined by how many of the Player's cities have Airports. A captured city will probably be in resistance for 6-10 turns; it'll probably be faster to send the second wave of units by sea anyway, while airlifting one unit per turn in the meantime. Airports and airlifting wouldn't be an immediate decisive advantage; in fact, airlifting only one unit per turn would be much slower than embarking a second wave of reinforcements and having them arrive a few turns after you've captured the beachhead. However, about 10 turns later when you can purchase an Airport in the captured city, you can receive unlimited airlifts per turn, which becomes a decisive advantage. But IMO if the enemy civ hasn't counter-attacked, destroyed your beachhead, and re-captured its city during that time, it's never going to, so it's better if the Player is able to steamroll the enemy with airlifted reinforcements, instead of having to wait for them to cross the sea. The end result will be the same.

    The following is a pic of a CC-117 (Canadian Armed Forces re-designation of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster) on an airstrip in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada.

    Spoiler :

    I've already proven that the C-17 can and does airlift M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (Mech Infantry) and the M1 Abrams main battle tank. That airstrip is normally used by small prop-planes, as you can see in the foreground; but apparently a C-17 can also use it. A mile-long stretch of paved runway is not the equivalent of an international airport. A modern, organized military force is capable of paving an airstrip virtually anywhere in the world in less than a month. Also, many countries have designed their highways to function as makeshift airstrips, if necessary (i.e. the Autobahn). Therefore, hastily prepared airstrips absolutely can handle military transport aircraft loaded with tanks.

    You're deliberately twisting my words and using quotes out of context. My criticisms of others who are being stubbornly dogmatic and adhering to the feeble-minded philosophy that "it is the way it is, and should never be changed, ever" were valid, because they were deliberately impeding progress and improvements. My ideas for Airports and airlifting would certainly improve Civ5; whereas your restrictions would impede their usefulness.

    Since Airports are not included in Civ5, we cannot be certain how they will effect gameplay and game balance. However, we do know how great Airports were in previous Civ games, which is why I believe that they should function the same way in Civ5. After the Airport has been implemented into Civ5 and has been used by Players, then its effect on game balance can be evaluated, and if it's deemed too un-balanced, it can be modified accordingly. I'd prefer to risk that the Airport being too powerful, like the Giant Death Robot, as opposed to being too weak or useless, like the Ironclad. If the Airport is too powerful, everyone will use it, and Firaxis will need to balance it. But if it's useless, no one will build Airports and therefore Firaxis will never bother to fix it, just like they've never bothered to improve the Ironclad.
     
  8. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    "1 unit per city per turn" is too vague because you're not specifying whether the city is sending or receiving the airlifted unit.

    I've explained this countless times already, but apparently I need to reiterate it:

    Only a city with an Airport should be able to receive multiple units per turn. A city without an Airport can only receive one unit per turn. A city must have an Airport to airlift a unit, and it can only send one unit per turn.

    That's how the Airport worked in previous Civ games, and that's the way it should be implemented in Civ5. As I explained, if it proves to be un-balanced after it's implemented that way, then it can be changed.

    A simple restriction could be programmed that would limit a city to being allowed to purchase only one unit per turn. Relying on the 1UpT rule to restrict multiple units from being purchased by the same city in the same turn is simply the laziest way to do it -- aka "the Firaxis way!"

    BTW, it doesn't work! A city can purchase multiple units per turn as long as they're different types. A city can purchase 1 civilian unit (Settler or Worker), 1 Land unit, 1 Naval unit, and unlimited Air units, including nukes! Same city, same turn.

    You said that would be unbalanced; so logically you should want that changed, right?
     
  9. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Germany
    I think, you made your point clear enough in your former posts and it was well understood.

    If airports would only be used for airlifts, you might be right (and even not then, as - when the conquering goes on - other cities with an airport may be available).

    But, as you stated well-founded in your previous post concerning railroads: They are of other use, too! Money, maybe production bonus and EXP for fighters, inner continental travel. So, you *will* have multiple airports!

    Granted, you are right relating to resistence time.
    But then, if you choose a small enough city as your beach head (or maybe even found your one one, if there is still a place available for this), purchasing an airport soon is not such a big thing.
    And, as I stated, you *will* have several airports at your home continent to transport a decend ammount of units per turn.

    Interesting! So, it seems I have to draw back my argument here! ;)

    I know - and it is intended! I really think, that some restrictions are necessary for a well balanced game and are needed for an interesting game experience at the end.

    Here, I do agree 100%! It's all a matter of testing - one way or the other. Maybe my one-unit-per-turn lilit *is* to restricting! But only tests will show!

    Peace and a hug,
    Deggial

    P.S.
    By the way, they gave ironclads some love. At least they (the ironclads) are upgradeable to battleships now!
     
  10. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    Ideally, yes. But all too often posters late-to-the-party chime in with their two cents without bothering to read earlier posts.

    I've stated that Airports should provide certain effects, like improving Wealth and maybe Happiness and/or Culture, but it was never my intention for an Airport to be built in every city; only highly developed cities, as well as in cities on other continents to permit inter-continental transport. It's not my intention for the Airport to provide beneficial effects on par with a Factory. Nor should an Airport provide extra XP for Air units -- that's what the Air Combat Academy is for.

    By the time Airports become available, it's unlikely there will be unclaimed tiles available to found a new city (except maybe in the extreme north or south) to serve as an immediate airlifting destination, so I don't believe that will be a game-breaking exploit. (Even if there were free spaces available, expanding and colonizing new lands is all part of the game.)

    Of course :rolleyes: you cherry-picked that sentence to quote, instead of the paragraph that followed that effectively refuted your argument that an Airport should be required for a city to receive airlifted units. You can't win the argument that way. :p

    As I explained, it's much better for the Airport to be over-powered and useful, than under-powered and useless. If your restrictions were imposed, the Airport would probably be latter, and Players wouldn't bother with it.

    Considering all of the things that went wrong since the latest patch, I don't trust Firaxis to play-test the Airport for balance. They'll probably screw it up and never bother to fix it. Instead, a Civ4-style Airport should be included in Civ5, then let Players test it for a month or two, and if proves too un-balanced, modify it accordingly.

    Allowing Ironclads to upgrade to Battleships doesn't make Ironclads useful. Anyone who produces Ironclads just so they can be upgraded later is crazy, because it costs ~500 :c5gold: to upgrade it to a Battleship. Considering that a Battleship now costs exactly the same as a Destroyer (WTF!?), it's much smarter and cheaper to wait until researching Telegraph and then produce Battleships.

    Ironclads are as useless as ever. Firaxis needs to allow Ironclads to cross the ocean -- that's the only viable way to make them useful.
     
  11. Rex_Mundi

    Rex_Mundi Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Denmark
    Because the game has a rule of 1UPT the reciving tile can't accept a unit if it is occupied, even with a single turn excemption.
    What happens next turn when you have to move 5 units out of the city, and no tiles are available?
    AI units, mountains... can block.

    It would also be a shame to loose all the units if the city is lost on the same turn.

    Maybe an an airport could drop off units on friendly vacant tile that has either a city, a road or a fort.
     
  12. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    Considering that modders have been able to disable the 1UpT "rule", it's obviously not set in stone. Unless Firaxis doesn't have a single programmer, they can modify the game code however the want, such as adding a 1-turn exception to the 1UpT rule for purchasing and airlifting units.

    Regarding what happens the next turn; that's a problem that the Player will have to anticipate. If there aren't any tiles available, the Player will either have to airlift the units out of the city (if possible) or disband them. Obviously if the city is completely surrounded by enemy units, it would be foolish to airlift multiple units to the city (unless those units are obsolete and the airlifted units have 100% chance of killing them). But if the Player has established a perimetre around the city, it should be permissable to airlift multiple units per turn. Again, if the city is captured by the enemy that turn, that's something the Player will have to consider before they decide to airlift units to that city.

    I wouldn't be opposed to granting an airlifted unit 1 Movement point after it's been airlifted, similar to a Paratrooper after it's been air-dropped. But I still don't want to have to move a garrisoned unit out of the city just to airlift a unit there -- it's an unnecessary inconvenience that can and should be eliminated.
     
  13. qec

    qec King

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Seems to me like this thread has digressed into an argument about 1UpT vs stacks.

    I think Civ 5 definitely needs to add airports. But disagree that you should be able to recieve more than 1 unit per turn if the city has an airport. It goes against all the current mechanics and unless they change the whole game back to stacks then it doesn't make sense. If they do change the whole game back to stacks, which seems to be the argument, then that's a fine mechanic.

    I see being able to transport 5 units into 1 city in a single turn to be totally exploitable; if a city is surrounded by enemy units then you would be able to airlift 5 units into a city and then fight your way out. I figure so much because currently the only time you can stack ground units is when a unit is built and the city already has a garrison in it. Either the garrisoned unit or the new unit has to move, but either of them has the option to attack there way out of the city. So to make this balanced it would seem you would have to change the game so that stacked units in cities can't attack, or switch it back to stacks everywhere.

    Also, they should definitely limit the amount of aircraft per city, but I'm not sure what the limits should be.

    Anyway, I also have an idea for Aircraft Abilities that I think would work in this tread:
    Aircraft don't get Great General bonuses, even if the city the aircraft is stationed has a GG there or the city/unit being attacked has one close. I think there should be a building that gives an attack bonus similar to a great general to aircraft. My reason being Fighters and Jets have a -50% ranged attack bonus and Bombers have a -25% vs Naval units. Most times you need 2+ aircraft just to take out a frigate which is a much older tech. The airport could be where the bonus is, or one of the buildings mentioned that give only aircraft extra XP, or another idea i had, which doesn't work well for realism, was it could be part of defensive buildings e.g +4% attack strength for walls, +5% armory etc. Or all part of one later defensive building, Military Base gives +20% combat strength of aircraft stationed in this city. But I don't know how it would work for balance and such, just thought it was a cool idea.
     
  14. ShunNakamura

    ShunNakamura Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    235
    Why not make an airlifted unit merely act like a paratrooper. . . seems like it would be a similar idea. In other words you can lift to the city and then expend their movement points to get them out and open the city for another run. However, the unit couldn't attack that turn.

    Perhaps if people think this would be overpowered(due to moving too many units per turn). . . perhaps you could link number of units that can be moved per turn to your oil reserves. So if you had ten unused oil you could move 10 units in that one turn from whatever airports you may have. This would build in a limitation mechanic(though would give Arabia a large advantage!:lol:) and perhaps make you chose between oil units and oil transport. I personally think it would be interesting anyways.
     
  15. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    Granting an airlifted unit 1 Movement point won't solve the 1UpT issue, because it will still require moving the garrisoned unit out of the city so that the airlifted unit can move there.

    This isn't an argument about 1UpT versus stacks. The idiotic idea that Civ5 must rigidly adhere to 1UpT-without-exception or revert back to stacks is ridiculous! There are exceptions to every rule. There are already exceptions to 1UpT in Civ5. So why is the idea of implementing a couple of new exceptions to 1UpT, for the sake of convenience, so abhorent to certain people?

    This is the idea and suggestion section, and yet many people are opposed to ideas that will inarguably improve Civ5. Most people here have agreed that adding the Airport to Civ5 will improve the game. But we're getting bogged down quibbling over unnecessarily restrictive game mechanics. Focus on the positive benefits of Airports, and stop obsessing about the insignificant problems.
     

Share This Page