Sims2789
Fool me once...
what about Satalites. they revolve around the map and can only be shot down with the SDI Defence
________
Honda Cx650T
________
Honda Cx650T
How About A Spy Plane?
- Thread starter Polka Sheep
- Start date
I realy think it's a good idea! As i see that should be a long range non fight plane. That plane could clear a fog of war for about 3 or 4 turn in mark area sized for example 5x5 or 8x8. I hope you understand what is my conception. It could be an Zeppelin in industrial era and than upgraded in plane in modern.
I also like this idea of sims2789!
I also like this idea of sims2789!
Admiral118
Chieftain
I've had a few ideas concerning this myself. I'd like to offer some of them and see if any inspire debate.
REFUELER
I think a refueling plane would make a great addition. As it stands, I've edited my game so that some of the more modern planes have ranges in the dozens of squares. This is the best way to portray real life, currently. It would be my hope that a refueling unit would function like so:
I have a plane, call it a KC-135, the American refueling plane of choice. It has a range of 15, and some sort of ability to increase the range of other planes. In other words, a refueling unit would allow other planes to operate within a certain radius of it, even if that square was outside of their normal operational range. An example would be sending out a KC-135 unit 15 squares from it's base, and that allows any fighter to operate within six squares of the KC-135's location, since six squares is its normal operational limit.
I hope I was clear on that...
SPY PLANES
I see these as long range planes with a souped up recon ability. Depending on how advanced the plane is, the range they can see increases. A blimp can see two squares, an early spy plane sees three, and a more modern plane, like a Blackbird, can see four.
The actual numbers aren't important. What is important is that the editor include a toggle where you can set how many squares the unit can see. Assuming that a guy floating in a blimp can see as well as a U-2's camera is asinine, and could be easily fixed.
Whether or not spy planes could see units inside cities, or nuclear weapons, would need to be evaluated so as to not upset game balance, though in general, I'd say "Yes" to both.
To offset these advantages, these planes would be expensive and vulnerable to attack, though I do feel that the chance of intercept for a Blackbird should be low, somewhere between the chance of shooting down a fighter and a stealth fighter. The Blackbird's high speed and altitude make it a difficult kill.
SATELLITES
These units should be invulnerable, or nearly so. Certainly no air unit should be able to intercept them. Their range of vision should be high, but not absolute. They definitely need to be able to see units inside of cities and nuclear weapons. I also think they should be able to see submarines.
As for how they should work, I don't think they should be an air unit, per se. I see them as being like ICBMs. Immobile, global range, but instead of nuking a square, they recon it. Cost should be high, as should the required tech level.
I also think that the satellite shouldn't necessarily be lost if the city that built it is captured or destroyed. The loss of the home city would represent the destruction or capture of the ground control station, true, but the satellite itself would remain in orbit. Maybe have a fifty-fifty chance of the unit relocating to another of your cities. If it does not, the unit would be captured or destroyed, depending on your enemy's tech level.
Perhaps a small wonder, call it NORAD or something, could ensure that your satellites always transfer to another city safely.
AWACS
AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System. You'd all recognize an AWACS plane to see one, they're the ones with the giant radar sets on top of them. I think an AWACS should operate similarly to how I described the REFUELER working. It flies out and establishes a radius around itself, maybe five squares. Any of your air units operating in combat within that radius get a bonus to their Attack and Defense figures.
These units would be expensive and vulnerable themselves to interception. You'd need to assign fighters to protect them. I'd imagine that an AWACS and a REFUELER operating together would make a deadly combation, and would add more strategy to air combat.
AWACS, and I suppose REFUELERS, should come in both land- and sea-based varieties. The sea-based ones would have the same abilities, but much reduced range and would only really be useful far from you own home cities and airbases.
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on my ideas.
Matt
REFUELER
I think a refueling plane would make a great addition. As it stands, I've edited my game so that some of the more modern planes have ranges in the dozens of squares. This is the best way to portray real life, currently. It would be my hope that a refueling unit would function like so:
I have a plane, call it a KC-135, the American refueling plane of choice. It has a range of 15, and some sort of ability to increase the range of other planes. In other words, a refueling unit would allow other planes to operate within a certain radius of it, even if that square was outside of their normal operational range. An example would be sending out a KC-135 unit 15 squares from it's base, and that allows any fighter to operate within six squares of the KC-135's location, since six squares is its normal operational limit.
I hope I was clear on that...
SPY PLANES
I see these as long range planes with a souped up recon ability. Depending on how advanced the plane is, the range they can see increases. A blimp can see two squares, an early spy plane sees three, and a more modern plane, like a Blackbird, can see four.
The actual numbers aren't important. What is important is that the editor include a toggle where you can set how many squares the unit can see. Assuming that a guy floating in a blimp can see as well as a U-2's camera is asinine, and could be easily fixed.
Whether or not spy planes could see units inside cities, or nuclear weapons, would need to be evaluated so as to not upset game balance, though in general, I'd say "Yes" to both.
To offset these advantages, these planes would be expensive and vulnerable to attack, though I do feel that the chance of intercept for a Blackbird should be low, somewhere between the chance of shooting down a fighter and a stealth fighter. The Blackbird's high speed and altitude make it a difficult kill.
SATELLITES
These units should be invulnerable, or nearly so. Certainly no air unit should be able to intercept them. Their range of vision should be high, but not absolute. They definitely need to be able to see units inside of cities and nuclear weapons. I also think they should be able to see submarines.
As for how they should work, I don't think they should be an air unit, per se. I see them as being like ICBMs. Immobile, global range, but instead of nuking a square, they recon it. Cost should be high, as should the required tech level.
I also think that the satellite shouldn't necessarily be lost if the city that built it is captured or destroyed. The loss of the home city would represent the destruction or capture of the ground control station, true, but the satellite itself would remain in orbit. Maybe have a fifty-fifty chance of the unit relocating to another of your cities. If it does not, the unit would be captured or destroyed, depending on your enemy's tech level.
Perhaps a small wonder, call it NORAD or something, could ensure that your satellites always transfer to another city safely.
AWACS
AWACS stands for Airborne Warning And Control System. You'd all recognize an AWACS plane to see one, they're the ones with the giant radar sets on top of them. I think an AWACS should operate similarly to how I described the REFUELER working. It flies out and establishes a radius around itself, maybe five squares. Any of your air units operating in combat within that radius get a bonus to their Attack and Defense figures.
These units would be expensive and vulnerable themselves to interception. You'd need to assign fighters to protect them. I'd imagine that an AWACS and a REFUELER operating together would make a deadly combation, and would add more strategy to air combat.
AWACS, and I suppose REFUELERS, should come in both land- and sea-based varieties. The sea-based ones would have the same abilities, but much reduced range and would only really be useful far from you own home cities and airbases.
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on my ideas.
Matt
Sturmgewehr
Warlord
hmm.. the sattelite could be expensive.. or it could just reveal a certain area, AND perhaps even carry nuclear weapons! Perhaps you should even need them for your planes, etc, to navigate correctly.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
I think a spy plane would be a good idea. You could have it recon over an enemy city and learn things about the city and troops in the area.
Polka Sheep
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 13
Admiral 118, your ideas are very unique and interesting. I would like to see them implemented in the game.
I agree that it should only be able to see a certain area. Maybe it should cost like 700 or 800 shields to build one, and then you could use it every turn to spy on a 8x8 area of the map. Maybe it would cost a little bit of gold too or something.
I think spy planes are a great idea!!
As far as satellites go... To be pretty simplistic, there are essentially two ways to monitor the planet's surface: low earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit.
The low earth orbit (LEO)can give you very high resolution imaging but you can only look at very small portions of the planet's surface and they move relative to the surface so you are scanning the surface. In game terms, I think LEO spacecraft should be able to see into cities over which they are flying. Their location would precess around a simulated ground track.
Geosynchronous (GEO) orbits always look at the same location on the planet's surface since their orbital velocity is precisely matched to the Earth's rotational velocity. However, since they are very far away (~20000 miles) their resolution is not nearly as good. These are typically used more for communications than imaging but the latter use is not precluded. In game terms these might be used to monitor infrastructure development and maybe see some unit locations (?). They should also be very expensive.
I agree with RX2000 that satellite usage should require some level of support cost to continue operating. They should also have a finite lifetime since fuel is required to maintain the orbit and position from time to time and there's no way to provide infinite onboard fuel.
Admiral, I like your ground control station ideas but perhaps you need to have to build a control center as a city improvement before you can launch and operate a spacecraft. I think, though, that if you have other control centers there should be no issues with contacting a spacecraft previously controlled from another center that has been lost.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too realistic.
As far as satellites go... To be pretty simplistic, there are essentially two ways to monitor the planet's surface: low earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit.
The low earth orbit (LEO)can give you very high resolution imaging but you can only look at very small portions of the planet's surface and they move relative to the surface so you are scanning the surface. In game terms, I think LEO spacecraft should be able to see into cities over which they are flying. Their location would precess around a simulated ground track.
Geosynchronous (GEO) orbits always look at the same location on the planet's surface since their orbital velocity is precisely matched to the Earth's rotational velocity. However, since they are very far away (~20000 miles) their resolution is not nearly as good. These are typically used more for communications than imaging but the latter use is not precluded. In game terms these might be used to monitor infrastructure development and maybe see some unit locations (?). They should also be very expensive.
I agree with RX2000 that satellite usage should require some level of support cost to continue operating. They should also have a finite lifetime since fuel is required to maintain the orbit and position from time to time and there's no way to provide infinite onboard fuel.
Admiral, I like your ground control station ideas but perhaps you need to have to build a control center as a city improvement before you can launch and operate a spacecraft. I think, though, that if you have other control centers there should be no issues with contacting a spacecraft previously controlled from another center that has been lost.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too realistic.
Unfortunetly i can not express my own opinion that good in English as you and Admiral did it, but you both had a valid points on this subject and ideas are very acceptable!Admiral118
Chieftain
Another possibility for a satellite control facility might be the Intelligence Agency. Perhaps building this means you'll never lose a satellite, so long as the Agency itself isn't captured.
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Originally posted by archer_007
Good idea.
Ivan the Kulak
King
There was an ASAT missile for the F15 - I don't recall if this ever went into general service but its certainly doable, For civ, you could build ASAT ground based missiles to deal with satellites.
Admiral118
Chieftain
Well, satellites have been around for decades now, so no doubt a lot of thought has been given in various nations on how to bring the enemy's down in the opening stages of any global war. I'd imagine the difficulty isn't so much in getting a warhead up into orbit to do it; satellites aren't armoured and wouldn't take much to destroy. The problem is probably more about accuracy, since satellites are a small target to hit. A nuclear warhead would certainly be enough, since even a near enough miss could fry the satellite, but detonating nuclear weapons in orbit is a bad idea because of the electromagnetic effects.
In real-life war, I think it is probably cheaper to obfuscate your ground activities than it is to try to eliminate enemy spacecraft with convential explosive missiles or kinetic energy weapons. Small nuclear warheads would be the best the bet but even that would not be a sure thing. It might not be a good idea to use nukes in space but it's even less of a good idea to use them on the ground and the game certainly permits us to do that!
Admiral118
Chieftain
It's almost certainly cheaper to try and cover your ground movements on the ground, like Serbia during Allied Force. But before the advent of a major, global war, I think one of my opening moves, in real life and in game terms, would be to try and knock out such valuable sources of information as satellites. The only unit in the game now that would be logical to give this ability to would be a nuclear warhead, but as I said, that's not how I'd want to do it.
SoCalian
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,901
Spy planes are awsome I would deffinately like to see them implemented. Also, some type of attack hellicopter that can engage in combat with ground units, but not be able to take cities. Mabey some kind of small wonder for the whole satelite Idea, but It would requrier suppot, and could be rebuilt at a later date if destroyed for some reason.
Admiral118
Chieftain
Well, I've been toying around with the idea of adding a small wonder to my game that would give Civil Defenses to every city or something along those lines. My model for it is NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is a defense agreement between Canada and the United States to cooperate on defending North American airspace and to monitor missile launchers around the world, to give prior warning to a missile launch against a target in North America.
If satellites were to be added to the game, I'd probably have the NORAD small wonder allow for satellites, or maybe just ensure that satellites aren't lost if the home city is captured or razed.
Also, NORAD's a pretty specific name, so I'd probably call it something like Strategic Command or some other generic, but accurate, name.
If satellites were to be added to the game, I'd probably have the NORAD small wonder allow for satellites, or maybe just ensure that satellites aren't lost if the home city is captured or razed.
Also, NORAD's a pretty specific name, so I'd probably call it something like Strategic Command or some other generic, but accurate, name.
marceagleye
Underground Economist
Slightly unrelated, but I suggested adding bomber support missions to fighters. The thread is titled "Air Superiority lacks bomber support" It's located in the conquests requests forum but didn't get much attention.
A fighter on a bomber support mission will engage enemy fighters in a dogfight before they can shoot down your bombers. A nice additon to bolster your air war and a great boost for the currently poor American UU.
A fighter on a bomber support mission will engage enemy fighters in a dogfight before they can shoot down your bombers. A nice additon to bolster your air war and a great boost for the currently poor American UU.
Admiral118
Chieftain
Well, the current system for Air Superiority is yet another example of the Civ system needing some tweaks. Air Superiority is as often offensive as it is defensive. When I set a fighter unit to Air Superiority, not only should it engage enemy planes over my territory, but it should seek out and destroy enemy fighters that are within their range. You should also be able to send fighters on missions into enemy territory to engage their fighters, so that the path is cleared for the bombers to come through.
Ivan the Kulak
King
Good call, Admiral. Even if we could rebase fighters to forward cities (and/or have a worker with enough movement to get in there and build a forward airbase) and have the units automatically fight on air superiority the same turn, that would help out alot.
