Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by gobbledydook, Mar 10, 2016.
Would you rather use triplanes/fighters, or anti air gun/mobile sams?
Depends on several factors.
Am I on offense or defense?
Do I have a tech lead? How much of one?
1. Suppose you are trying for domination. We might be talking about a push with artillery or armor units. If you had enough oil, would you go triplanes or anti air guns? Obviously your tech lead might be something like you're at Ballistics while they are at Flight. Like a one tech lead.
2. Suppose you are about to get invaded and you don't feel like bribing them away. You can see they have quite a few great war bombers. What would you get?
I would lean much heavier to planes in both scenarios. On offense or defense they can get to another front/city faster. Each map is different, of course - I'd have to consider how worthwhile or how large any cities are that I'd take (would maybe buy an Airport) and how near other cities are that I might take, to plan out overlapping defense. Also, it seems that it is very common to start getting AA Guns from Military CS's all of a sudden. So I end up not having to build many, sometimes none. FWIW, I almost always build 2 Fighters when I hit Flight just to not be taken by surprise.
Agreed. Those first 2 fighters are an absolute priority.
I still tend to lead towards building more Anti-Air units. They are just more versatile.
Of course, a lot of the preference here depends on tech path.
If you need anti-air to support your standing army then by all means go with Anti-Air Guns.
If you need support for Bombers, be it defensive or offensive, always get Fighters.
Triplanes are pretty bad sadly.
Two triplanes with 2 interceptor promos is all you ever need. The promos are what makes them effective intercepters and two is enough to handle whatever the AI builds for planes.
Triplane 6 range means they might not cover your next city target...
I usually get AA guns before fighters become available. Or if the AI cities are close enough for triplane then get that instead. Sometimes the AI is too far away, this is one of the times when I would consider planting a city to bridge the gap so that your planes can get to the frontline.
Not trying to sound like an a s s here, but that's not really true at all.
First off, Triplanes only have a 50% chance of interception. That's pityful. It means that it's essentially a coinflip whether your Triplane will Intercept accordingly or just do absolutely nothing for the entire turn. That's already pretty bad.
So with two Triplanes against more than two Bombers you're already kinda goofed statistically. When your opponent has a Triplane or more his attack becomes almost risk-free, seeing as how an Airstrike cannot fail, but your interception can.
A realistic scenario would be like this:
Enemy city: 3 GWB, 2 Triplanes
Your city: 3 GWB, 2 Triplanes
All the enemy has to do is Air Strike twice, meaning you will not be able to intercept a single Bomber. Even if the enemy doesn't have a Triplane and both your Intercepts go off (literal best case scenario) you are
1) Not guaranteed to kill the attacking GWB
2) Only able to Intercept 2 GWB meaning the third one can attack freely
3) Limited heavily by the poor Triplane range
4) Using what is probably the single most important strategic resource for a unit with more defensive than offensive prowess
5) Devoting production into a unit that will often time do nothing but intercept, whilst AA guns also serve a very important purpose in being decent blocker units
Fighters on the other hand are a completely different story and very much better than AA guns/ Mobile SAM at interception
@ Everyone ITT:
This video is by far the most comprehensive guide to air combat I have seen, it explain the mechanics in-depth and might even have something new in store for people with more than 1000 hours played
I think some of the newer players may need elaboration on this.
Planes are much, much more proficient at interception than AA land units (through my experience, but it seems others agree.) However, when you're bulldozing from city to city through another civ's territory and/or are attacking a civ that's far from your own territory, the battlegrounds may take place outside of the interception range of any of the places where you're allowed to station aircraft. Carriers can be a fix to this dilemma, but they're a lot of hammers and maintenance for this purpose, and they aren't always able to reach the site of battle (heart of a pangaea, for example.) In these cases, AA land units are a better option for coverage. Additionally, AA land units may be a better option if the opponent has aerial dominance.
fighters also take up precious slots that bombers would like to occupy especially if you have low range GWB I guess. Even with 10 range bombers if you have like 10 bombers then you might not have much space or oil left for fighters. But you can spam as many AA guns as you want.
Agree with all of the above.
Further elaboration: When you first take a city, you can then rebase a fighter there, but you still have an entire turn with no air cover unless you have AA's. This can be devastating.
I've gone entire games without building fighters, but don't think I'd even consider trying to do so without land AA.
It depends on how many bombers AI have. If all they have are damaged bombers, you can go without land AA, even when your fighters are changing bases. You can tell it happens when all their bombers are in the bases healing instead of attacking. Usually if I started domination with bomber/fighter combo, I won't even build ground based Mobile SAM or AA guns. Promoted Atomic era ground units can take a few bomber hits without interception anyway.
Further, further elaboration: while you can rebase to recently captured cities, be cautious if you're razing it. There are several instances in the game when a unit can no longer occupy the tile it is in, when it's fortified in a tile that an AI without open borders acquires, for example. Or a civilian in a city when a great person spawns. In either and all of these cases, the unit is simply moved to the nearest tile it can occupy. The sole exception (that I know of) is an air unit in a city that burns down. If any fighters or bombers finish their turn in a city that is removed the next turn, that unit is destroyed.
In the Persia CDG I didn't even bother with any anti air. I just massed bombers and tanks and took the ineffective hits from GWB.
I would rather use AA guns and Mobile SAMs.
I agree with this as my experience with anti-air is:
Triplane < AA guns < Fighters < Mobile SAM < Jet Fighters
Triplanes are very weak, but usually unlock earlier than AA guns, and some dedicated air cover is better than nothing.
One of the main benefits of AA and Mobile SAM is that you can get the Medic promotions for those units. Park them next to the city they are defending and they will intercept enemy aircraft and also repair any planes based in that city (particularly useful once the planes have the Air Repair promotion).
I find triplanes (and subsequent fighter units) most useful for air sweeps, forcing the enemy to expend their intercept capabilities (other fighters and AA/SAMs) before sending in the bombers.
I was more thinking using AA as an overpriced infantry.
additionally medic AA Guns also heal bombers in a city if they are adjacent
Separate names with a comma.