1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

revamped air-force

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Blitersety, May 1, 2005.

  1. Blitersety

    Blitersety Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5
    In CivII you could do as much with the air-force as the army. In CivIII, you could hardly do anything! I think that in CivIV, they should restore the flexibility of being able to move the air units all over the map and so-on. This would be really cool. You should also be able to carry nuclear missles in certain airplanes so that you can bomb anywhere and not be restricted to keeping the missles in the city they were created in, especially if it is an in-land city that can't load nukes onto submarines.
     
  2. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    you do know you can move airplanes right? just hit re-base?
     
  3. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,757
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    I hope to see a more useful implementation of air units in CIV4.

    The CIV3 system was too distant and lacked involvement.

    .
     
  4. Gogf

    Gogf Indescribable

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,163
    Location:
    Plane Of Fish Sticks
    Another note: Tactical Nukes (the ones that could be loaded onto submarines) can be moved in Civ3.
     
  5. sir_schwick

    sir_schwick Archbishop of Towels

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    USA
    These suggestions are based on modifying the Civ 3 air system, so they may be way off:

    1) Re-base should be a free move and not take an entire turn. This would tremendously increase the usefulness of air units.
    2) After a certain tech(Radio?) you can assign fighters/bombers to 'close air support' for a particular unit. AS long as that unit is fortified/attacks within range, the aircraft will provide more powerful bombardment(more accurate targetting data, spotters). If they attack, they your units help in the attack. If they are attacked, same still goes.
    3) You can assign fighters to escourt bombers on their sorties.
    4) Nuclear bombers should be units that can only be used once for 'dropping the bomb'. They would cost less than equivalent missle systems. They are also avaliable earlier.
    5) Transport Helicopters should be able to extricate troops as well as deliver them to the field. They can also transport Artillery(okay, it was light guns in Korea, but it was still arty).
    6) Attack Helicopters should be able to have the same 'close support' abilities as Fighter/Bombers. They should also have mundo bonuses vs. armor. They should also be able to base more places.
     
  6. Blitersety

    Blitersety Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5

    Yes, I know that. I also agrre with those of you who have said that re-basing shouldn't deplete the unit's turn.
     
  7. Nobody

    Nobody Gangster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,452
    Location:
    Wellington New Zealand
    Why i think it should stay the way it is, it isnt like when america (best airforce) was getting ready for kosovo (Best air war) they had then in position instantly. it takes time, if you want speed like the way america can stealth bomb the middle east, then just give units huge ranges
     
  8. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,725
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    The biggest problem with the Civ2 system was that it was so darned exploitable. I remember lots of games where I couldn't attack a ground unit, because an air unit was right on top of it :mad: ! The so-called 'bomber wall' became such a nightmare-not to mention the Micromanagment involved in keeping tabs on ALL your air units-to see if they had been out for 1 or 2 turns.
    I think that Civ3 air wars are the best way to go, but with the improvements mentioned by Sir_Schwick.

    Yours,
    Aussie_Lurker.
     
  9. Gogf

    Gogf Indescribable

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    10,163
    Location:
    Plane Of Fish Sticks
    Sounds good, but rather than the way you mentioned nuclear bombers, certain bombers should be able to carry nuclear bombs. You can then load a nuclear bomb onto them, and they will be able to fly a "Nuclear Bombard" mission (no other bombard missions can be flown with a nuclear weapon on board).
     
  10. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,865
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm against rebase missions not taking 1 turn. How long does it take to rebase a bomber from Andrews Airforce base too an airfield in the Balkan (does anybody KNOW (=! guessing)). You don't move a nuclear missile that easily either, let alone a helicopter.
     
  11. Penitent

    Penitent Pacifist Warmonger

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    UK
    Fighters should intercept any enemy air units that enter your territory and attack them straight away just inside the border. As the invader you would have to send in a fighter "escort" beforehand to clear out the enemy fighters, so that your bombers could reach their targets safely, or fighters could be attached to bombers to defend them en-route.

    Damaged fighters can sometimes disengage from combat when redlined and heal quickly (for an ongoing air war, it would be no fun if one sides entire airforce got destroyed on the first battle), if two civs had airforces it would be difficult to use bombers but a good payoff if they reached their targets.

    Radar towers would give benefits to fighters against attackers like in the battle of britain (when radar was invented it was used to spot german planes and let the RAF know their positions). such as multiple attacks for defending fighters or something.

    You could use espionage to disable anti-air defences, or maybe to ground all air units in a city for a turn through sabotage.
     
  12. sir_schwick

    sir_schwick Archbishop of Towels

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    USA
    My best guess would be about a week, including paperwork. That may be optimistic, but the planes can be flown over the Atlantic. Also, during Gulf War I, we moved our aircraft into relevant bases pretty quickly. However if this seems unreasonably, then maybe mission range should extend to within range of any airforce base.

    Also, nuclear missles require incredible amounts of security and scrutiny in transportation. That is if you are referring to nuclear war-headed aircraft missles and other things such as that. ICBMs are nearly impossible to move, if not impossible. I think you have to drain the fuel from ICBMs to recover the warhead and electronics.
     
  13. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Depends on the kind of ICBM. If it's liquid-fueled, then you shouldn't normally keep them fueled all of the time anyway, and they should be easy to move. I don't know about the solid-fueled ones, though.

    Looks good so far, but I think that when an airbase is overrun by enemies in a war, it shouldn't be destroyed. There are plenty of examples of capturing airfields from WWI all the way up to projected Cold War scenarios. There's no good reason to not be able to use an enemy airbase if your troops control it (one of your units occupies the square).
     
  14. Colonel

    Colonel Sandbox

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,151
    Location:
    Back in the Good Ole USA
    Any kind of ICBMs are not meant to be moved ever, they require a total disassembly and removeal of the warhead(s), and for one to move it at all another silo has to be set up before hand. This is of course by US standards.

    Anyways, all I have to add is we need nuclear bombers with extremely long ranges and higher ranges for other planes

    Also, need to include Biplanes, WW1 era planes, I hate how I just go from nothing to WW2 era Bombers and such.
     
  15. sir_schwick

    sir_schwick Archbishop of Towels

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    USA
    This is a bit off-topic, but should we be able to build 'discount nuclear power plants', via the Minatome model? Maybe they cost 1/2 the shield cost and 1 gpt, but have 1% chance of blowing any turn, 50% whenever city first enters disorder, and then it automatically blows after that. Could apply to ICBMs and other nuclear-related craft, but with less problems.
     
  16. Left

    Left Real Game Out Here

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,797
    Location:
    AK or OR
    I don't like the Civ II or III airforce sstem, but I think elements of it both could be combined into a good one.

    First you would control our planes like you control your ground units, but at the end of each turn the plane would be returned to base. You could fly up to a enemy unit, and when you attack you are given the option of flying over or attacking. If you fly over say, a flak unit, it may shoot you down. Air superiority missions would stilll be available, it would be like fortifying. I think this system would be better for doing recon and those type of things.
     
  17. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
  18. DBear

    DBear unbeliever

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    3,262
    Location:
    Prime Material
    I would like to see air and sea power balanced with land, as it is in Civ3, sea power is almost an afterthought.
     
  19. AKauhanen

    AKauhanen Civ3 graphics for Civ4

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    Very good ideas. (Except the first).
     
  20. Gregski

    Gregski Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Central Europe
    I like the civ 3 style air units better even if it is a bit underpowered. I'd prefer to be able to bombard units and bombard city improvements as two distinct options. Of course, there is no guarantee in either, but a greatly increased probability of 'hitting the right thing'. Taking out any city with bombers in civ2 was embarrisingly easy.
     

Share This Page