Yes, I don't think Chariots and War Elephants have this Flanking Attack. Maybe you have to Promote them first with the Flanking Promotion.
New and Changed Unit Stats
- Thread starter GIR
- Start date
Bushface
Deity
So what is the point of aircraft having "strengths" if they're not used ?
From what I have gathered, one single defending Fighter ought to be enough to protect a target from an unlimited number of air attacks if combat is as in 2.08 and the Fighter can make unlimited interceptions, though presumably some Stealth Bombers could get through. Also, the number of Bombers available for attacking will be severely limited by the "four per city" rule, which will make it very awkward to get enough aircraft into the front line to do real damage to the enemy, thus slowing your advance. Moreover, the effect of this will be amplified if the damage per hit is lessened. Overall, it seems that the usefulness of aircraft will be greatly reduced.
Oh, and will aircraft be allowed to strike at Gunships defending a city ? The present rule is that an Air Strike targets the strongest defender unless that defender is a Gunship, which only becomes the prime target for an Air Strike after all, but all, other defenders have been reduced in strength as far as possible. And for the love of Mike, why can't an air attack kill anything ?
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Personally, I don't think limiting the number of aircraft per city is a good idea... rather I think that if any limitations are placed, it ought to be to the number of air missions per turn.
So when you launch a bombing run, rebase, set a fighter to intercept, etc. that would count against the city's maximum allowed air missions. So you could theoretically store an infinite number of airplanes in a city, but they wouldn't all necessarily be able to act.
But I agree that airstrikes need to be more devestating. I don't agree with airstrikes killing units (except maybe naval units), but I think that there has to be motivation for the player to maintain air superiority even if only to keep enemy fighters from attacking their units. I think Fighters should be weak on bombing but very good with airstrikes... especially versus tanks. True, certain fighters in reality would be better at this than others, but I think we could abstract these distinctions in fighters and just make the Fighter unit capable of handling anti-ground as well as anti-air operations.
The other thing is that the AI tends to pick the absolute worst units to launch an airstrike against... I invaded one civ's continent once and I had a Caravel that they pounded unmercifully even as my Infantry and Tanks were conquering one city after another. If they'd started hitting my land units and not some terribly obsolete unit that I was expecting to be taken out at some point, they might have slowed me down quite a bit.
So when you launch a bombing run, rebase, set a fighter to intercept, etc. that would count against the city's maximum allowed air missions. So you could theoretically store an infinite number of airplanes in a city, but they wouldn't all necessarily be able to act.
But I agree that airstrikes need to be more devestating. I don't agree with airstrikes killing units (except maybe naval units), but I think that there has to be motivation for the player to maintain air superiority even if only to keep enemy fighters from attacking their units. I think Fighters should be weak on bombing but very good with airstrikes... especially versus tanks. True, certain fighters in reality would be better at this than others, but I think we could abstract these distinctions in fighters and just make the Fighter unit capable of handling anti-ground as well as anti-air operations.
The other thing is that the AI tends to pick the absolute worst units to launch an airstrike against... I invaded one civ's continent once and I had a Caravel that they pounded unmercifully even as my Infantry and Tanks were conquering one city after another. If they'd started hitting my land units and not some terribly obsolete unit that I was expecting to be taken out at some point, they might have slowed me down quite a bit.
Rule Brittania
SAFC Supporter
This shouldn't happen if the Improved AI is really as good as Firaxis say it is, and they are saying it is good, such as the AI going for Cultural Victories and being able to launch successful Naval Invasions. Hopefully they also improve the AI's handeling of air units and this won't happen.
vale
Mathematician
I've been wondering about the siege unit nerf for a while:
They now will have damage caps that they cannot exceed while attacking. So what will happen when I attack with a catapult and on some round in the fight I would exceed the damage cap with some hit (or possibly the hit that got to this point). Is it
a) Catapult withdraws for free and gets experience as if it had won the fight.
b) Catapult withdraws for free and gets 1 xp for withdrawing from combat.
c) Catapult does not withdraw and with the no withdraw from combat nerf in addition is guaranteed to die at some point in the combat while inflicting no additional damage.
I'm pretty concerned about this nerf in addition to the addition of a better ai in terms of my ability to compete at all on immortal. I guess time will tell but I'm expecting that I might have to drop a level or two until I retool some of my ideas about the game.
They now will have damage caps that they cannot exceed while attacking. So what will happen when I attack with a catapult and on some round in the fight I would exceed the damage cap with some hit (or possibly the hit that got to this point). Is it
a) Catapult withdraws for free and gets experience as if it had won the fight.
b) Catapult withdraws for free and gets 1 xp for withdrawing from combat.
c) Catapult does not withdraw and with the no withdraw from combat nerf in addition is guaranteed to die at some point in the combat while inflicting no additional damage.
I'm pretty concerned about this nerf in addition to the addition of a better ai in terms of my ability to compete at all on immortal. I guess time will tell but I'm expecting that I might have to drop a level or two until I retool some of my ideas about the game.
Roland Johansen
Deity
I hope that it was very clear that I was talking about the situation in Warlords 2.08. It could have changed in BTS.
In Warlords 2.08, air interception was controlled by the interception percentage. The higher this percentage, the higher the damage and the chance of interception. If two flying units with an interception chance met, then both could intercept the other. The defender however had a significant advantage. Very seldom an interception would be lethal. Each unit could only intercept once per turn.
This air combat model leads to a significant advantage for the attacker in an air war. The attacker can exhaust the defending air fleet and then bombard with impunity. The loss of aircraft would be negligible as long as they were fully healed because air combat was seldom lethal.
So the trick was to assemble a large air fleet in a city near the border, exhaust the air defenders and then bombard the enemy city until all defence bonusses were gone and every defender was at half hitpoints. At that point the ground units could take the city without losses against the severly weakened ground forces. You would seldom lose aircraft against the defending anti air units.
The strength value was only used to determine bombardment damage.
In BTS, air combat is very lethal and anti air units can defend multiple times per turn. You can also not easily assemble a large air fleet near the border without using many forts to keep these aircraft. This will completely change air combat as you will now definately lose aircraft against the defending anti air units and can't easily assemble a large air fleet to severly weaken a city.
Air combat will no longer be free of cost but will be costly again.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Oh, it IS right.
It forces players to protect their airbases with SAM and Fighters. A Bomber alone has no protection from airstrikes.
Edit: It shouldn't be possible for bombers to destroy tile improvements with anti-air units no them.
sorry, free?
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Well, as long as there's a way to prevent it from happening, I'm fine with it. I just don't like the idea of a fully functional "airbase" one second and then toast and a total loss of all airplanes there from a single bombing run. I think it all depends though on how ground anti-aircraft weapons interact with air units.
Well, airbases historically have been prime targets, for the precise reason you mention. The first attacks of the Battle of Britain, the early Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor and Clark Field, the airstrikes on D-Day, the Israeli attacks at the beginning of the Six Day War, all had the same purpose; to catch the enemy's planes on the tarmac and turn them into junk
Bushface
Deity
In v2.08, it's better to use Air Strikes rather than Air Bomb, because any unit whose strength has been reduced to 50% will be weaker than if it lost the city defence bonus but remained at full health. Some special circumstances affect this dictum, however.
1. If the city has 100% defence bonus, Strikes and Bombs will have equal effectiveness.
2. If you have enough bombers to flatten the defences and knock the defenders down to 50%, it doesn't matter in what order you strike and bomb.
3. Strike cities or stacks with Bombers, not Fighters, because of the collateral damge they cause. But use Fighters against single units.
4. If one of the defenders is a Gunship, it will never be the primary target of a Strike until all other defenders are down to 50%. Fortunately, Gunships are affected by collateral damage.
Now, what will happen in BtS ? Will bombing damage still be calculated as a % of the original cultural defence, or will the (reduced) percentage be subtracted from that defence. thus changing the number of bombings according to the defence strength ? And so on, and so on. I suppose we must wait and see.
1. If the city has 100% defence bonus, Strikes and Bombs will have equal effectiveness.
2. If you have enough bombers to flatten the defences and knock the defenders down to 50%, it doesn't matter in what order you strike and bomb.
3. Strike cities or stacks with Bombers, not Fighters, because of the collateral damge they cause. But use Fighters against single units.
4. If one of the defenders is a Gunship, it will never be the primary target of a Strike until all other defenders are down to 50%. Fortunately, Gunships are affected by collateral damage.
Now, what will happen in BtS ? Will bombing damage still be calculated as a % of the original cultural defence, or will the (reduced) percentage be subtracted from that defence. thus changing the number of bombings according to the defence strength ? And so on, and so on. I suppose we must wait and see.
It may seem a little off topic to those fans of the air war around here, but I'm more of an early fighter myself. Has anyone seen anything about the Cuirassiers and the adjusted Cavalry? Stats or abilities? I figured the cuirassiers would be something like 12 Str units, but I have no clue.
Nicopol
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 216
I think the Native American Dog Soldier could be an interesting unit in the right circumstances. Not needing copper or iron, so that means you can have a potentially strength 8 unit vs warriors, axemen and swords right out of the gate, no matter how bad your starting location. of course they are weak vs. archers so they won't bust down cities.. although I could see them even doing that in a very early rush strategy.
I never seem to get copper in my starting locations so I'm looking forward to this guy.
... although I guess you need Bronze Working first, and I see the Native Americans don't start with Mining, so that nerfs the early rush idea, oh well.
I never seem to get copper in my starting locations so I'm looking forward to this guy.
... although I guess you need Bronze Working first, and I see the Native Americans don't start with Mining, so that nerfs the early rush idea, oh well.
Similar threads
