Questions on Air Units



BTW, by having minus HP bonus but higher defense stats you can create air units that are resistant to being shot down by ground fire or AA city improvements but are less capable in air to air combat. For example: The "Penetrator" representing the B-1 and Tu-160 has a defense of 30 and -4HP. It has the same air to air strength as a vet def: 9 "Strategic Bomber" but has the anti ground fire and SAM resistance of a gen4 "Air superiority fighter".

Would this be the best way to emulate the Drones of today?
But the suicide Shahed Drones are probably more like Cruise Missiles, but except you wouldn’t be able to shoot them down in the game. Also, I can’t remember but do Cruise Missiles ever fail to hit something?
 
Would this be the best way to emulate the Drones of today?
But the suicide Shahed Drones are probably more like Cruise Missiles, but except you wouldn’t be able to shoot them down in the game. Also, I can’t remember but do Cruise Missiles ever fail to hit something?
I do believe you can shoot Cruise Missile ability units down if they're air units. But you can't intercept them. That means fighters and SAM batteries won't do.

A good way to emulate suicide drones would be to make them air units with very low defense and cruise missile ability. The cruise missile ability means they can't be intercepted by fighters and long range SAM batteries. In real life they're just too cheap and fly too low to commit these resources. The Shahed would have done its job perfectly if Patriot missile intercepts it. Instead, give all your units the token air def value of 1. These drones can be downed by small arms. Flaks, MANPADS and low alt SAMs deal with them.

Another interesting thing is that units with only 1 HP but high defense do worse against weaker units compared to stronger ones. For example, according to the civ3 combat calculator:

A ww1 fighter with 8 atk and 4 HP has a 61.2% of shooting down a 30 def 1hp Penetrator

A ww1 fighter with 8 atk and 4 HP has a 50% of shooting down a 8 def 4hp Strategic Bomber

A 4th gen fighter with 30 atk and 4HP has a 93.8% chance of shooting down a 30 def 1hp Penetrator

A 4th gen fighter with 30 atk and 4HP has a 95.9% chance of shooting down an 8 def 4hp Strategic Bomber

As you can see, the Penetrator performs slightly better than the Strategic Bomber vs the 4th gen fighter. But does far worse against a ww1 biplane. So a counter to them would be modern age cheap COIN aircrafts.
 
Last edited:
Would this be the best way to emulate the Drones of today?
But the suicide Shahed Drones are probably more like Cruise Missiles, but except you wouldn’t be able to shoot them down in the game. Also, I can’t remember but do Cruise Missiles ever fail to hit something?

I've just tested. I gave the bomber in WW2 Pacific the Cruise Missile unit and then Nuclear ability and gave it 0 defense. Playing as the japs I promptly expect Honolulu's huge stack of war ships to shoot them down every time as that's what happens to air units with zero def bombing something with a >0 def value. The cruise missile and nuclear ability bombers never got shot down once despite having 0 def.

This means these 1 time use units can't be intercepted or shot down :sad: . In the case of the Shahed drone, you'd just have to play with the combat calculator and reduce its bombard strength. Missing would represent it being shot down.

A stock game cruise missile has a 83.1% chance of taking off 1 HP from an unfortified Mech Inf in open flat terrain.

The Shahed, being low, slow and loud (extremely un-stealthy besides the fact that it's dirt cheap making using high end missiles to shoot them down prohibitive), is very vulnerable to ground fire. And thus it can be treated as if there's always maximum AA fire against it.

Stock game flak has a 9.1% chance of shooting down a bomber. 4 flaks (the maximum of AA units participating) would have an around 33% of shooting down a bomber from what I've read. But it could just be 9.1% x4=36.4% though.

Let's assume 33% of the Shaheds will always be shot down. That means 33% less hits. 83.1% x 2/3=55.4%

Giving the Shahed a bombard value of 11 with ROF of 3 would be the closest at 55.7% hit rate. It's not perfect. But I think it does represent drone swarms well. There's meant to be lots of attrition trying to overwhelm with numbers. You can make them have 2 movement points to quickly rebase and strike to differentiate from stock game CMs.

I make them dirt cheap (40s for 1 turn production) and give them precision bombing. May take you a couple but if you take out a Factory or Powerplant it's worth it.
 
From debug testing I can report that the AI often rebases it's Air Def flagged units into border cities at the front. That leaves their core unguarded against strategic bombing. And while the cities themselves can be guarded with anti-air improvements, the tile improvements around them are very difficult to make the AI protect.

Industrial era interceptors have the range of 6, meaning they interception range extend 3 tiles back from the front city. The AI places cities like 4-5 tiles or more from each other. That leaves us with at least a 2 tile radius that will eventually be turned into craters with impunity.

I'm still thinking of a way to make the AI station interceptors in their core. But as long as you have operational range on a unit, the AI will be able to rebase regardless of that air mission command has been assigned in the editor or not. And in order to intercept you need to have operational range. A short operational range of 1 would result in 1 interception radius from rounding up if I'm not mistaken. But even that would result in a 6 rebase range, causing that unit to leave the city.

Another path would be point defense. I've created "Strategic SAMs" that are air units with high Air Defense value and -4HP. They are flagged as "Air Transport" (Air Def results in them performing interception and Air Bombard will result in them bombing) with no carrying capacity and are the target of stealth bombard for ground attack aircrafts/tactical bombers/fighter-bombers, allowing these units to perform SEAD missions against them. Being air units, they can be lethally bombarded.

The Air Transport flag makes the AI rebase them to their front line cities, protecting their offensive aviation there from the player's offensive counter air. If you give them high def value, they could shield other air units from regular air bombard until finally hit and destroyed. The AI still can't use them very intelligently and will often stack more than 4 of them in 1 city. Thus they shouldn't build too many.

Immobile SAM being "rebased" by air in real life.

By not having the "Air Transport" AI strat but another one like "Explore"/"Flag Unit" and being immobile, they will be stuck in their original cities, where they can provide point defense with their AD value. Perfume will make the AI build anything, including things with "Explore" or "Flag Unit" AI strats. So you can have Strat SAMs flagged as "Air Transport" that serve in the front and Strat SAMs that are flagged as "Explore" to serve in the rear.

But what about the tiles? They're still exposed. How can we have the AI position units with AD value on their tiles? What kind of unit would the AI just cover their core tiles with?

"Terraform" AI strat could be the answer. But terraform units only move onto tiles that need working and will move away once the tile has been finished. Still, mobile AA units with zero worker strength could cover bombed tiles while the real workers reconnect them. But then they'll move off and the human would just bomb them again. The AI does not know how to cover its strat res with AA units. Plus the AI would prefer building AA units flagged as "terraform" over real workers despite their worker strength being zero. So they need the king unit treatment or be purely available through auto production.

Or one could have them be immobile and given the Offensive flag and the operational range of 2 with airdrop. The AI would airdrop them and have them stuck there. But from testing the AI would just airdrop them on the same tile instead of covering their territory with them.

With Flintlock patch enabling artillery usage, having AA units flagged as defensive could lead to the AI leaving its cities covered nothing but 2 flak batteries. It's better to have them flagged as "Offensive" and given 0 attack and appropriately perfumed to be built. This way the AI will move them forward with their offensive stack or will defend their cities with them in a pinch but won't treat them as part of the 2 minimum defenders. You could also have some flagged as "Artillery" with bombard range and value to accompany their artillery SOD. AA guns are used to bombard ground targets after all.
 
The biq used in that screenshot done more than a decade ago in the pre-beta testing of CCM 1 is not existing any longer. But as there is no reason to change here something, I suppose that the setting here was the same as it is in the current CCM 2.50 biq.

May be here really was a glitch in the graphical presentation. The next screenshot in that game shows parts of the death animation of a unit (the white cloud). Normally in my screenshots no parts of the combat can be shown.
In my current testgame of CCM 2.6 it happened again: One strategic bombing attack by one bomber with the CCM settings destroyed two buildings in the attacked city. There is no graphical glitch in the screenshot and no addition of two attacks. I have a save file, where this result can be reproduced.

Strategic Bombing.jpg


Edit: Here is the setting of this strategic bomber:

He-177.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greetings Civinator, if I remember correctly, I have had that happen in my mod of the War in the Pacific scenario with a significantly boosted B-29, but not with one of my standard bombers. My standard bombers have a bombardment value of 18.
 
In my current testgame of CCM 2.6 it happened again: One strategic bombing attack by one bomber with the CCM settings destroyed two buildings in the attacked city. There is no graphical glitch in the screenshot and no addition of two attacks. I have a save file, where this result can be reproduced.

View attachment 669825

Edit: Here is the setting of this strategic bomber:

View attachment 669826
Did you execute a stack bombard command or just a single bombing command?

When I tested bombers bombers with the collateral dmg flag I could never get it to happen. I've only seen it happen once with the WWII Pacific heavy bomber. But since you're using a different unit here it means it's not a bug or fluke limited to that particular unit.

Can someone do a mass test where they unleash like 50 bombers with that colletaral dmg flag on a target? The most abundant test I've done is with the WWII Pacific scenario excecuting the Pearl Harbor attack. Maybe there simply weren't enough bombers and the odds of taking out 2 buildings with 1 bombardment is rather low like 5% or so.
 
In my current testgame of CCM 2.6 it happened again: One strategic bombing attack by one bomber with the CCM settings destroyed two buildings in the attacked city.
This may have something to do with the Collateral Damage setting.
 
This may have something to do with the Collateral Damage setting.
:yup: Yes, and this was the intention why I added that flag. The question is,why is it not happening more frequently ?
 
Civinator... perhaps collateral damage is a programing percentage factor and or dependent upon the number and type of buildings.
Yes this could be. After more than 20 years we still know much too less about some mechanics of Civ 3. :crazyeye:
In this case no unit receives the first attack, but a building (precision bombing).

CollateralDamage.jpg
 
Top Bottom