Airships: Why are they even in the game?

[Underdawg]

Machine Guns should be able to shoot them down. There doesn't seem to be any use for machine guns currently, this would have them do something.

Machine guns are good for accompanying your stacks since they do not take collateral damage being that they are classified as siege units.

 

[Inky]

Meh, when I bomb something with an airship, all it causes is 12% damage. No collateral there.
Why can't airships cause collateral damage?
A flak gun would be nice though and it should not go obsolete (make it have an advantage against tanks because an 88mm flak gun can be an anti tank gun) because we still use flak guns today

First thing, people are complaining that the airship does even that much damage. Historically, they weren't very effective weapons. Collateral damage would make them more powerful than that, and they may be too powerful as it is.

An AA Gun unit would make sense, as they were used but not of great effectiveness. Get them with Artillery, that would make sense. Modern AA guns are more effective, but flak guns rarely killed aircraft. The flimsy ones in WWI, yes, but not often.

A big problem is with when they become available. Physics really should get observation balloons -- shorter ranged and only recon mission. Combustion is necessary for Zeppelin airships, because what else makes them steerable?


Why are they in the game? I'd guess because the AI could be programmed to use them, and they were of historical importance. In our real world history, true dirigible airships flew barely before airplanes -- the first Zeppelin in 1901. They actually developed in parallel, competing flight systems.

Observation balloons, those were available much earlier, and were important. A better recon range definitely wouldn't be a bad thing. But the AI might spam them and use them foolishly, which wouldn't be good for the game.

A lot of units could be added. I think I'll do a thread on that. But unless they are fun and useful in the game, they aren't worth doing. Marathon speed players would get much more use of units which obsolete in a tech or two, while normal speed and faster wouldn't be so likely to use them. The modern era definitely lacks some developments. WWI flight and submarines are barely represented, and the cold war 50s-60s likewise. The revolutionary developments in military technology are glossed over.


One more problem with airships is that they obsolete with flight. In the real world, airships remained in service through WWII. Their military usefulness essentially went away when better recon aircraft came around, but they were still useful for recon and were good submarine hunters. I figure they shouldn't obsolete until a unit to replace them gets built, and that should be advanced flight or rocketry (whichever one we want to allow the submarine recon promo for bombers).

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Here's what I don't understand. If we're determined to have airships in the game, why can't they attack each other? Who's to say you couldn't steer your own airship up against the invading one and throw a Molotov cocktail (or for that matter a grenade) at it from above?

"It burst into flames! It burst into flames and it's falling!"

They are reasonably easy to kill compared to planes.

 

[Stylesrj]

Because you're not going to lean your head outside an airship when the other guy has a pistol?

How hard is it to shoot some guy with a grenade who's sitting in a slow-moving target? If you see an airship higher than yours in the distance, you raise your ship higher, it's not like they're blind and can't see a higher target from a distance. Both targets would usually be high in the sky anyway

 

[PutCashIn]

I know theres obviously alot of different 'airships' that have been used in the wars during the last century, but even in WW1 and airship generally had a better altitude ceiling than the wood/strut/canvas planes.

And thus almost silently floating over a city at night, im sure many a citizen realised a bit too late what that rapidly approaching 'sounds-almost-like-a-bomb-falling' screaming noise actually was... boom.

Forgot to pack tracers in your mg's? your not setting it on fire in a hurry then.

 

[Stylesrj]

Umm, the airships are so high in the sky that they cannot aim the bombs and if they do drop them, the wind sends them off course so they hit some field instead of the house. That's why they were not so effective, because they couldn't aim. Didn't you read the other posts?

Also a prop plane can carry bombs and fly above an airship doing a bombing run and drop the bomb right on top of it. That's if it packed bombs and not tracers

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Because you're not going to lean your head outside an airship when the other guy has a pistol?

How hard is it to shoot some guy with a grenade who's sitting in a slow-moving target? If you see an airship higher than yours in the distance, you raise your ship higher, it's not like they're blind and can't see a higher target from a distance. Both targets would usually be high in the sky anyway

Assuming you actually did see it from the underside, where the 'cockpit' was located. Failing that, you simply bring several airships, and outnumber the chap.

Oh well... there's no point in arguing about it.

 

[CivFan87]

I agree, I wish airships weren't in the game. It sort of breaks your vision of the game when your stack of muskets and knights(and trebuchets) getting bombarded with airships and you can't even do anything about it.

 

[bob_x]

Machine guns are good for accompanying your stacks since they do not take collateral damage being that they are classified as siege units.

I learn so much about the game from this forum.

I need to remember to build more mixed stacks.

What promotions do you give these Machine Guns?

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

I love airships and the additional layer of complexity they add to combat in their era - both offensively (using them) and defensively (being prepared to face them).

Boohoo, my stack died to airships because I wasn't prepared to face them.

ew

 

[vilemerchant]

I love airships and the additional layer of complexity they add to combat in their era - both offensively (using them) and defensively (being prepared to face them).

Boohoo, my stack died to airships because I wasn't prepared to face them.

ew

The problem is since there's no counter about the only 'preparation' is going to be bringing larger stacks. Say we're playing multiplayer and you invade me, I have 4 cities within airship range of your invasion force, each can house 4 airships. I've also built forts, each of them can house 4 airships too. Lets say I can bring about 25 airships to bear on your troops every turn without losing a unit. Even if you have airships of your own they can't hit my airships when it's your turn. How well will you stacks fair and what preparation could you take to prevent it. Just bring MORE units? How many will you need? Even a massive stack you could pound the bejesus out of in this way, then hit it with a couple of cannons, then mop up the damaged troops with cavalry/currasiers taking hardly any losses. You've hardly wasted a hammer and your enemy is decimated.

Airships built in large numbers are basically an exploit.

 

[GenocideBringer]

25 airships? If he's spending that many hammers on airships, then your military should be absolutely massive compared to his.

 

[vilemerchant]

25 airships? If he's spending that many hammers on airships, then your military should be absolutely massive compared to his.

Sure, but how many of them will LIVE?

 

[vilemerchant]

Remember these airships are going to cause a lot of damage every single turn of the war, for free, without any risk. Their hammers aren't 'spent' because unlike the invader the units don't even die unless their city falls. All you need is enough to damage every unit of a stack, then hit it with a few cannons and it'll be looking pretty sick. Then a few cavs will hit it and be 'flanking' the siege units to death as an added bonus. What would he have left to actually capture a city with?

 

[astrologix]

Put some SAM infanteries in the invader stacks and you'll see the defender airships fall as flies

 

[Peng Qi]

Put some SAM infanteries in the invader stacks and you'll see the defender airships fall as flies

At that point I might as well just get fighters because I have a massive tech lead.

 

[astrologix]

Not necessarily : to have SAM you only need physics + arti + rocketry : you can start your invasion before having Flight.

And the guy who has 25 airchips (certainly a defensive guy) isn't necessarily behind you, because he has physics (needed to build airships) and possibly Electricity + Biology (about the same cost as arti + rocketry).

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

...Say ...you invade me, I have 4 cities within airship range of your invasion force...

Then I'm an idiot for

a) choosing an invasion point that you could bring so much airpower to bear on, and
b) using slow moving units that allow you multiple turns of undefended fire, or
c) using a poor mix of units/promotions that leave my entire stack vulnerable, and
d) not bringing along a MedicIII GG to maximise my between turns healing

And if you spend so much time building airships and forts to maximise your coverage, then you deserve a certain unassailability until I can build airpower to counter - but in the meantime you won't have an invasion force worth speaking of. A fair trade-off in my eyes.

ew

 

[Cvntpumeler]

At that point I might as well just get fighters because I have a massive tech lead.

Maybe you should play on a harder difficulty level. This whole thread seems to be about Airships being unfair because there is "no counter" for them, when in reality it seems like the AI can't counter the airships cause it's so far behind in tech that it can't build them to counterattack stats with... If both civs have airships, then the airships counter themselves or benefit whoever is in range of said airships, usually the defender. By "counter themselves" I don't mean attack each other, I mean if both stacks of units get hit equally by airships then they are just as well off as if neither side had airships.

I think airships are fine in the game. They give defenders a slight advantage (offense can use airships too) at a point in the game when a lot of people like to pull a bee-line rush with Riflemen or Cavalry and Trebs, which is probably why they are not so popular on this forum.

I do think that airships should cost a little bit more to build, and that would be all the nerf that they'll need.

 

[Peng Qi]

Maybe you should play on a harder difficulty level. This whole thread seems to be about Airships being unfair because there is "no counter" for them

No, I don't think they're unfair, I think they're stupid, ahistorical, and most importantly not fun at all.

If both civs have airships, then the airships counter themselves or benefit whoever is in range of said airships, usually the defender.

Always the defender.

By "counter themselves" I don't mean attack each other, I mean if both stacks of units get hit equally by airships then they are just as well off as if neither side had airships.

False. The defender can bring a greater number of them to bear since the fight will be in his territory.

They give defenders a massive advantage

Fixed.

I do think that airships should not be capable of making airstrikes at all, and that would be all the nerf that they'll need.

Also fixed.