Jet Fighters killing naval units in 1 attack.

[Botcha]

How in the H.E.Double hockey sticks are single un-upgraded jet fighter's able to sink naval ships in one attack against an Armada of Missile Cruisers WITH three generals around them? Also sunk a triple upgraded Aircraft carrier the next turn...

Talk about a game breaker!

 

[Mahi]

You need to have an airforce with you to intercept incoming attacks, I guess but the AI never brings an airforce to protect its navy. So naval/air combat is broken.

It's funny because one of the biggest argument to switch to one unit per tile only, combined with embarkment of land units was so that the AI could handle naval warfare better but, in my opinion I have never felt an improvement in naval warfare over civ 4.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To be fair how many holes in a boat does it take to make a difference?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To be fair how many holes in a boat does it take to make a difference?

Depends on the size of the hole relative to the waterline of the 'boat', and where the hole is. IF the 'jet fighter' (more likely, Attack aircraft) is carrying torpedos, the hole is likely to be large and exactly where it has to be to do the most damage. On the other hand, bombs from above not guided or dropped precisely tend to merely damage the vessel, if that.

The record in the Falklands War (which was, admittedly, a generation or so ago in missile/ship defense technology) was that a single aircraft-launched missile (the French EXOCET) could sink or at least put completely out of action a medium-sized warship. On the other hand, the lesson also was that there were a number of countermeasures that, if they knew the aircraft was coming, could be used to completely confound or shoot down the missile.
So the in game event is not impossible, but assuming equivalent technologies on both sides, the aircraft's attack shouldn't more than a 50% certainty by any means.

This is, I think, another argument for 'specialized' Promotions for Fighter/Bomber aircraft: say, one that increases factors against naval vessels (Torpedoes, applicable to all aircraft, including Biplanes), one that increases factors against ground units (Dive Bombing, air-to-ground rockets), one that increases factors against Antiaircraft units ("Wild Weasels" - only for jet fighters or jet bombers). But on the other side, promotions for warships that increase their capabilities: Helicopter pads (for Destroyers, Battleships, Missile Cruisers) that increase Vision radius; Gun Directing Radar that increases factors against all targets, including aircraft; Point Defense Automation (for Aircraft Carriers, Missile Cruisers) that increase factors against Aircraft or Helicopters, and so on.
The mechanism of Tech Promotions Firaxis used on the GDR is wasted on an End Game Unit rarely seen before the game is over: we need to add that to other units in the game from the Ancient Era (Heavy Shields, Metal Body Armor, Saddles) onward.

 

[Tech Osen]

The AA abilities of a ship can't protect itself, only protects adjacent tiles. So you need at least two ships with AA to cover eachother and other ships.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The AA abilities of a ship can't protect itself, only protects adjacent tiles. So you need at least two ships with AA to cover eachother and other ships.

Shows how often I play into the Modern or Atomic Eras, I did not know that. Now that I do, it reduces my opinion of the game and its designers even further. This is contrary to both the historical basis for the game and Common Sense, and reinforces my determination to continue to finish or quit from boredom all games before the Atomic Era . . .

 

[Botcha]

The AA abilities of a ship can't protect itself, only protects adjacent tiles. So you need at least two ships with AA to cover eachother and other ships.

So the Jet Fighters flying though the adjacent tiles to bomb me both incoming and out going don't count? What about that 3rd level Carrier that was right next to the Missile Cruiser...shouldn't it's AA then fire on the Jet Fighters using that logic?

Game's horribly broke...

Now the jet fighters from that same Polish AI are directly attacking Mobile Sam launchers without even a scratch....BROKE BROKE BROKE!

 

[Tech Osen]

Carrier doesn't have AA. I'm not saying it all makes sense from a RL perspective, it's probably just done for balancing reasons.
As for the SAM, I don’t have enough experience with those, they worked well enough for me when I last used them but that was pre GS.

 

[Jigglewiggle]

The game could probably do a better job of making sure players more clearly understand how aspects like anti-aircraft work, I guess, and the implimentation of the tech unlocking boosts a la the GDR is very cool, but in my 2000 hours at Immortal I've never once experienced something that made me feel the AI aircraft was broken in a way that didn't favor me like in OP's post. Don't want to lose units to aircraft? Protect 'em with AA. Now you understand how and can be accountable for next time. Not a broken feature of the game, just one not super clear and easily taken for granted.

 

[Victoria]

@Botcha & @Boris Gudenuf chill.
They can defend the tile they are in as I understand it but oddly enough cannot defend themselves. I’ll post something later on it. It is no more broken than the rest of the game.

 

[Zenstrive]

Yeah, air units are STRONG.
In Modern era, land based siege units are useless. You need BOMBERS to kill cities.

 

[Victoria]

To me fighters are just OP stupid, and they patched up the power when they were already over.

 

[SaiH]

I already mentioned this in a different thread. My impression is that Anti Air generally is not really effective against Air Units, at least fighters. AA-Guns and Mobile SAM do a little damage to a fighter but they are not a protection at all. AA capability of ships is even worse. I did not test that but I think it might be effective against bombers but not fighters.

 

[Tech Osen]

@Botcha & @Boris Gudenuf chill.
They can defend the tile they are in as I understand it but oddly enough cannot defend themselves. I’ll post something later on it. It is no more broken than the rest of the game.

We simply don't know whether it's bugged or not since there is no info in the pedia about how it's supposed to work. It is rather odd that naval AA works a bit different than the land based support units.

 

[Victoria]

So Jet Bomber vs Mobile SAM by itself... looks like an even match

However if there is 3 defending AA around it, it loses severely

Jet Bomber vs Missile cruiser with 2 supporting AA units (each gives +5)... please note that it does not gain the -17 vs land units.

Jet fighter vs mobile SAM by itelf

Now the jet fighters from that same Polish AI are directly attacking Mobile Sam launchers without even a scratch....BROKE BROKE BROKE!

So this seems incorrect... what is broken

Jet fighter vs mobile SAM and another SAM next to it... note the )5 supporting AA from the defending unit which is a bit of a misnomer, but a correct one.

For people unaware if there is AA it does an attack before the target attack... but if the target is AA and there is no other AA nearby, no AA attack occurs.

@Tech Osen what do you mean by naval AA working differently, all AA works the same. I need to do one more test to see how bad the one issue is. That is testing am AA and a SAM adjacent and attacking the SAM, whether the AA attack uses the SAM base or the AA base, I suspect it is the SAM base which indicates bug/poor design.

To summarise my view (as I have not deeply explained how the above works)
A bomber/fighter attacking a SAM by itself is being shot at by the SAM AA strength. So that sounds fair. What is odd is the bomber is -17 and the fighter is not and as I said fighters are just too strong now. Sure a tornado fighter would be right but a plain fighter is waaay to strong, a jet fighter only gets an additional +10.
A bomber should get -17 vs naval, bombers were rubbish against naval ships (unless they carried a specialised bomb like with the Tirpitz)
AA interdiction IS an air strategy, nocking out the AA units with fighter bombers before the bombers come in, standard practice. The AA is not defenceless but with AA support is in a much better position. To get the mechanics feeling correct a lone SAM should shoot the attacking craft before it does its attack, that is a key thing wrong here as well.
Why do they do such a poor job of everything implemented until it has been highlighted by 1000 posts?
Too busy visiting canals on our money I guess

 

[MaryKB]

I was just in a game where a computer player's Fighter did 70 damage to my Nuclear Submarine Armada which was sitting beside my Destroyer. Do Destroyers still fight planes? I was totally surprised it'd do so much damage, and that's a middle fighter not a jet one.

 

[SaiH]

@Victoria
Thanks for testing this. Fighters usually didn't attack a Mobile SAM directly in my games. They attacked land units which I tried to protect with AA guns and Mobile SAMs wich did not have much of an effect. Can you confirm this?

 

[Victoria]

I was just in a game where a computer player's Fighter did 70 damage to my Nuclear Submarine Armada which was sitting beside my Destroyer. Do Destroyers still fight planes? I was totally surprised it'd do so much damage, and that's a middle fighter not a jet one.

A nuke sub has a base strength of 80 and no AA. So an Amanda of subs is 97 strength.
A fighter (not jet) has a strength of 100... YES... one friggin hundred on attack and defence.
A destroyer has an AA of 70.

So what happens is the fighter attacks and has to get past the AA... 70 vs 100 means about 5 HP damage so will fight the subs at -1.
So against the subs 99 vs 97 means around 30 HP damage to both units... so 70 damage sounds like promotions and luck to me.

Regardless fighters are too strong. When I can get to a PC again I will double check but am pretty sure of my values.
Maybe they are pushing the aircraft carrier point about planes trumping navies... but they cannot even get aircraft carriers to work properly after all this time. Muppets.

@Victoria
Thanks for testing this. Fighters usually didn't attack a Mobile SAM directly in my games. They attacked land units which I tried to protect with AA guns and Mobile SAMs wich did not have much of an effect. Can you confirm this?

A fighter is strength 100 and does not get -17 for attacking land units.
An AA is 70 and a SAM is 80;so if attacking a unit protected by both, the SAM strength is used as it is the strongest and +5 for every other AA unit... so the AA defence is 85 vs 100 which is about 12 HP damage... this means the fighter is fighting at -2 vs the land unit.
100 fighter vs say a tank at 80 will be one 98 vs 80 and take half its HP away.

Think about the above and it is clear fighters are too strong, maybe that’s why they are expensive. They have made AA ineffective, the original fighter strength made more sense.

I remember someone posting a while back about how OP a mustang was.... at the time fighters were 80 and mustangs 85.....I really am at a loss with their decision on pretty much everything they do.

 

[Tech Osen]

what do you mean by naval AA working differently, all AA works the same.

Well, if you put an AA support unit on the same tile as combat land unit that unit will get the defensive bonus when attacked by a plane. You would assume the build in AA from naval units works the same.

I'm a bit on the fence about whether air units are overpowered as is. Air superiority is often a decisive advantage in modern warfare. But the mechanics leave a lot to be desired atm, we can agree on that.

One thing that made me shake my head a while back was when I was attacking a coastal city with battleships and a destroyer. There was only one sea tile connected to the city and at one point the AI puts a fighter on patrol on that tile and it blocked my destroyer and there was nothing I could do with all my naval AA guns present. The AI being the AI he moved it two turns later and lost the city.

 

[Victoria]

Sorry for multiple posts, probably breaks things nicely anyway
So a fighter attacking a SAM with a defending AA faces an AA defence based on the SAM first. This shows rubbiish design, attacking a SAM by itself should do an air defence first. In this instance the SAM is effectively firing twice while if there was no AA next to it, it could only fire once.... muppets

@MaryKB I could not test a nuke sub amada, but a single nuke sub seems to work as I expected earlier....We must be aware all my tests are done in Firetuner and it would not be the first time an in-game bug did not show up in firetuner but I have not seen one to do with damage before.

There was only one sea tile connected to the city and at one point the AI puts a fighter on patrol on that tile and it blocked my destroyer and there was nothing I could do with all my naval AA guns present. The AI being the AI he moved it two turns later and lost the city.

Lol, its not the only stupid thing I have seen with patrols, attacking fighters at aerodromes do odd things as well but not as good as your sea patrol fighter