combat intercepting fighters?

[hema80]

Is there any way to destroy, or at least damage, intercepting fighter/jet fighters?

 

[puwen]

Is there any way to destroy, or at least damage, intercepting fighter/jet fighters?

Use you're own fighters/jet fighters to do missions in their intercepting area.

 

[hema80]

I tried both air strike and bombing. Sometimes it succesed, resulting in damaged ground unit / reduced city defence. Sometimes my aircraft gets intercepted, resulting in my aircraft gets damaged or destroyed. In both cases the enemy plane is not hurt one single bit.

 

[nullspace]

I tried both air strike and bombing. Sometimes it succesed, resulting in damaged ground unit / reduced city defence. Sometimes my aircraft gets intercepted, resulting in my aircraft gets damaged or destroyed. In both cases the enemy plane is not hurt one single bit.

That's all you can do. The interceptor gets some combat advantage, so they are rarely damaged or destroyed. But they can only intercept one plane per turn. So once you draw them out with your figters, you can safely send in your bombers.

 

[licker]

I would imagine you can destroy them if you capture the city they are based in.

 

[Kerrang]

When bombing or conducting air strikes with fighters, you have a chance of damaging or destroying enemy interceptors. Of course the interceptors have the advantage, so they will damage/destroy your fighters most of the time. Bombers do not have this capability, and the best you can hope for with bombers is that they will return to base undamaged. Also, fighters can only do this against intercepting air units, but with intercepting ground units, they can be directly damaged with air strikes from either fighters or bombers.

 

[Kerrang]

what about doing air superiority with one fighter and using a second fighter to bomb the enemy city that has a fighter?
haven't tested this but it might work.

Interceptors only work on bombing/air strike attacks, they will not intercept enemy interceptors.

 

[Arkturus]

Finally.
I found a thread that deals with the problem I see. I started a war against an equally armed Civ, thus it is jet fighter vs. jet fighter. I see in 95% of cases that my fighter is damaged and the enemy returns undamaged to base - thus being able to intercept the next turn.

This way, it's impossible to gain air superiority in Civ4!

I already considered some ways to change that:
-Edit some script or config file to lower the advantage of the defending figher
-create a new special fighter unit (proposal: F-22 Raptor, hehe) for my civ that has more strength or whatever influences the combat odds for my benefit

I would prefer solution one, instead of 95:5 I would set the chance to 70:30 or something like that.
Question for the modders in this forum: Does anybody know how to do such a change? Pleeez... I'm loosing almost my motivation to play further because of this issue.

btw:

Interceptors only work on bombing/air strike attacks, they will not intercept enemy interceptors.

This is not correct. The DO intercept, but unfortunately very seldom - not to say EXTREMELY seldom, which is exactly my problem.

 

[SewerStarFish]

It seems that having incepted aircraft damage interceptors (with fighters doing more damage than bombers) as in Civ3 would be the logical path. I'm willing to bet that the air-to-air combat factors will be tweaked in the next patch.

 

[Gram]

Personally I'd like to see air and sea units go back to their old style. No more only damaging, not killing, bombing runs.

The bombings in London, Paris, Berlin during WWII certainly didn't result in no deaths. The whole point of dive bombers, heavy bombers, and fighters, was to provide multiple attack modes from the air.

Hell look at todays latest conflicts in Afghanistan, and Iraq. The heavy lifting (and destroying) is done by air units before most groud troops are deployed. They don't just soften up defenders or attackers, they kill them.

I'm enjoying Civ 4 immensly but if there is one point of the game that they failed on its the sea and air impotence.
Naval units should be able to bombard anything within 1 or 2 tiles of a coast. Now I understand that in Civ 3 this could be a powerful military tool. But thats as it should be.

The United States Navy, and the British Navy pounded the crap out of the beaches in Normandy before and during the shore landings. This was to soften the defenses and provide cover for their infantry. You think the tomahawk missles launched from cruisers today only aim at reducing defensive structures in an enemy coastal city?

Like I said, the Naval and Air combat in Civ 4 needs to be worked on for any new expansion, they're more of an afterthought to infantry combat than any true military advantage.

 

[Arkturus]

Yes, yes and yes! Sea and air superiority in Civ4 has a far too small impact on a war, this way the most effective thing you can do is put everything you have in producing land units.
And what leaves that left of strategical / tactical finesse? Not much, I think.

 

[Bushface]

There's a lot more discussion of this in the "Air Interceptors Question" thread in this forum.

 

[Arkturus]

That's right - and I'm discussing along. However, the problem is: Nobody has the slightest idea what to do about it... That's why I'm posting in a couple of threads:
I hope one time there will be some modding pro that knows what to do about it.

 

[Bushface]

Ah well . . . And wouldn't it be nice to be able to send several bombers to the same target in the same turn, possibly with fighter escorts ? In fact, maybe you can already do this - select a stack of bombers and send them to a target. Haven't tried, myself; has anyone ?

 

[Dueck]

Bushface, you can select a stack of units and have them all perform the same attack or bombing run, but it will not affect how they do their action. They will still sequentially do the bombing, one unit at a time.

As far as interceptors go, I should hope that sending in fighters first for the strikes would give a better chance of damaging the enemy fighters, or at least having SAM infantry in the area or interceptors of your own patrolling the area... If not, you can still send your fighters in first to draw the enemy interceptors' fire, so your more damaging bombers can do their thing uninterrupted. Each interceptor, land-, sea-, or air-based, will only intercept one air unit per turn.

Also, Gram, the idea is that, while soldiers are killed, you cannot wipe out an entire unit of, say, infantry by use of artillery or bombardment. By the time you get to a certain number of troops killed, the battalion is sparse enough, and has had enough time to find cover that further bombardment won't be particularly effective. I do think you should be able to sink ships, though, with enough air attack, since having fewer ships won't particularly decrease air offense effectiveness on the fleet...

Edit: misspelled stuff

 

[Gram]

Bushface, you can select a stack of units and have them all perform the same attack or bombing run, but it will not affect how they do their action. They will still sequentially do the bombing, one unit at a time.

As far as interceptors go, I should hope that sending in fighters first for the strikes would give a better chance of damaging the enemy fighters, or at least having SAM infantry in the area or interceptors of your own patrolling the area... If not, you can still send your fighters in first to draw the enemy interceptors' fire, so your more damaging bombers can do their thing uninterrupted. Each interceptor, land-, sea-, or air-based, will only intercept one air unit per turn.

Also, Gram, the idea is that, while soldiers are killed, you cannot wipe out an entire unit of, say, infantry by use of artillery or bombardment. By the time you get to a certain number of troops killed, the battalion is sparse enough, and has had enough time to find cover that further bombardment won't be particularly effective. I do think you should be able to sink ships, though, with enough air attack, since having fewer ships won't particularly decrease air offense effectiveness on the fleet...

Edit: misspelled stuff

Yes I realize that you may not necessarily be able to kill everyone from an Infantry battalion, but in effect artillery, and air bombing can cripple infantry units and make them virtually useless. Dive bombers simply annihilated tanks in WWII. There is a balance between realism and it being a game. I find the uselessness of Naval and Air units to be extremely disappointing.

Why can naval units attack nothing but cities and other naval units then? Nothing else is a viable target? Guns work the same on mines, farms, towns, infantry units along a coast, just the same as in a city.

There are a number of issues that from a tactical stand point make for pretty simplified combat, and the two biggest are air and sea.

I don't know what it is about video game designers today, but they seem to be making them dumber and dumber to meet the lessening intelligence of society today. The funniest and scariest part is, Civ is one of the more complicated games around.