make air power in civ4 more like reality!!

[GIO888]

I couldn't believe planes can't attack ships!!

then again, I couldn't believe ships can't bombard land improvements either.......

 

[ulsterman88]

how about an airbase tile improvement with all of the characteristics of airport.

would a new air mission called escort bombers be feasable, possibly decrease chances of AA fire damaging bombers and/or fighters intercepting them.

 

[zeeter]

It is likely that planes can't sink ships due to play balancing. You could just build a bunch of planes and never have to worry about an enemy fleet nearby, and vice-versa. If planes could sink ships there would be less chance for naval battles and less chance for amphibious invasions. It would be nice if they could get it in there somehow, but the way that the game mechanics work now it is probably not feasable.

Perhaps if the game included a unit called a Naval Bomber things could change. In reality, how many ships did B-17's and fighter planes sink in WWII? Imagine a B-17 divebombing a carrier. They'd never be able to pull up. I'd say that a naval bomber unit would have to be fairly expensive and have a very limited range.

 

[ulsterman88]

you could balance air powers ability to sink ships by:

Increasing the air defense of carriers and destroyers. This would leave battleships vulnerable to attack like in reality.

Could employ a critical hit system, were a air unit has a approx 30% chance of scoring a critical hit on a naval unit. Maybe even give them a certain number of critical hits before sinking.

EG Battleships 2 hits
Carriers 3 hits
Sub 1 hits
Destroyer 2 hits
After one critical hit a unit loses half of its combat strength?
Is this too complicated for the game?

 

[enchanter100]

Destroyers would have a chance at intercepting bombers/fighters and then you would also have to have a carrier loaded with fighters escorting your battleships to help defend against the attack.. I like this idea very much!

 

[MoonBase]

Is this too complicated for the game?

Possibly. Not in the "there's too much stuff" sort of complexity, but more because it utilizes an element not actually already in the game code to begin with.


But I like it, myself.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Presently, air interception of healthy bombers (full hit points) are seldom lethal. You could increase the power/lethalithy of bombing ships if interceptions are more lethal. At present only something like 10-15% of the interceptions result in the loss of an airplane. And if the airplane is not lost, then the interception is fairly useless. With a healer in the city that is the base of the bombers, the bombers will be back in service within 3 turns.

If the interception of planes often leads to the loss of the airplane, then you would think twice to attack a carrier fleet loaded with fighters and destroying a destroying with repeated bombardments could also lead to the loss of the bombers.

Yes, you could destroy a fleet of ships purely using fighters and bombers, but it would lead to the loss of a number of bombers. Because both sides would have a number of losses, I think it can be balanced.

 

[Antiochus]

The Aegis Cruiser definitely needs to be reintroduced. I can't fathom why it was taken out in the first place to be honest.

 

[boneys26]

3a) no need. SAM does the job and comes at the right time.
b) Too many units complicate the game. After all why not have light cruissers, medium cruissers, heavy cruissers, battle cruissaer, juggernaught, ect....

I have the sam (everyone does) but i also have mobile sam and flak88 units i think its better to have more than one type of unit that does the job makes you think more also seeing the same units all the time will be boring. I also have around 5 jet fighters and 4 bombers but none are the same, The bombers have more range changed to 12 i think where as i set the fighters to about 6 or 7. (not moves that still set at 1) I also got about 5 helicopters chinook. mi24, ka50 etc.. If only i could find someone that's doing normal modern ground units then it would even it out more.

 

[Elmstr]

I think it could be a good idea, i like it myself

 

[Crighton]

just as an update to my latest game.

I started on a continents map future start. I grow to conquer my large continent, Rome, France, China get the boot. Cyrus & Freddy divide up half the other continent and Alex is off on an island (irrelevant).

I had 30 Stealth Bombers and fair number of Jet Fighters coupled with my SoD. Cyrus has always irritated me, he's never close enough for me to do anything to and always out f reach, so mot of my dealings with him he's had ample time to buil up either a lead or enouh of a position to make real hesitant to go after him.

Anyway, I kick off the war and cap a coastal city of his and I put my SoD in the city.

Wow.

It was link an anthill, MA's JF's, Gunships, MI's out the wazoo. I lost a gunship or two but held the city. So I bust out the air war and start preping my next attack. I lost 9, NINE, stealth bombers trying to bomb his capital. He had two SamInf, and three jet fighters, in the capital and I assume a bunch more around. I tried an easier target and now i'm down to 7 stealth bombers.

Really cool animatino when an SB gets shot down. Lost more bombers in that last game then all my previous games combined.

 

[gmanne]

Perhaps we don't want things too realistic. Can you imagine the Senate Inquiry if an Air Force General lost 9 B2's?

 

[Marshall Thomas]

Do most players feel that Civ 4 accurately reflects a nation's ability conduct a strategic bombing campaign? Should bombers be able to destroy city improvements(buildings)? Or is it good as it is?

 

[ulsterman88]

how about a new air mission for bombers/fighters called bomb infastructure this would represent bombers attacking cities improvements. This would make bombing campigns much more realistic i think