Unit Preview: A-10 AntiTank Plane

santo67

Huitzilopochtli
Joined
Nov 17, 2001
Messages
126
Location
A rundown, rusty, cold and bug-ridden trailer on t
I have the run animation done, but the death and attacks will take considerably longer. Before I put too much effort into them, how about some comments on what's here?
 

Attachments

  • a10run.gif
    a10run.gif
    13.8 KB · Views: 629
Looks great! :goodjob:

I was wondering when the Warthog would make it's appearance. When the new patch comes out you could allow this to bomb and kill units :D Keep up the great work!

What kind of stats/use do you have in mind?
 
Hey great unit!!!!
Keep up the good work!!!!

Wait a minute suddenly I'm getting very sleepy

I'm getting sleepy ..........sleepy

zzzzzzzzzz

snoozzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
Thanks for the comments.

As to A-10 Thunderbolt II stats... well, it's mostly a ground support craft, so there will not be air superiority. It has a typical range of about two thousand kilometers, a 30 mm cannon, rarely carris air-to-air missles, and is a bargain at $8.8 million. It's very rugged and designed to fly with one engine or even part of a wing shot completely off the plane. I'm open to suggestions.
 
If you give it an attack capability (even though it will mean that you are not required to base it in a city or carrier) and provide it with a greater range of square movement, this unit will be unique to the game in that in can arrive on the scene from some distance away and actually 'KILL' ground units and shipping. Now THAT would be true ground support.

PS: or maybe a Harrier Jump Jet, in that it can be used without a runway and is therefore far more mobile, might be the answer to providing a truly non-based attack aircraft. Or maybe an Apache Helicopter . . . oh well, the list goes on.

Really nice looking graphics. ;) ES
 
Hey! If aircrafts in Civilization III became non-based, game became unreallistic. Because on base aircrafts refuells and recharge weapons, but on the ground nobody could do this! :egypt:
 
I agree, but I think I read somewhere on this site that giving a unit an attack value (so that it is capable of actually destroying other units) is not compatible with requiring it to be based somewhere. Anybody got the know-how to answer this???

If that's the case, then a Harrier is about as close as it gets. The U.S. Marines have used these and site them extremely close to the front lines in groups of one or two, so they are, in fact, refueled and rearmed in the field so to speak. Besides which, I've noticed that you can move a cruise missile right along with your other units in the field and utilize it whenever. That's just about as lame. (I happened to capture one a while back in a city I conquered and destroyed. It came right along with me when I left, just like the artillery and the workers.) ;) ES
 
PS: You probably already know this but I'll say it anyway, just in case somebody doesn't - - - a Harrier Jump Jet is a British built, multi-purpose jet with vertical take off and land capabilities, meaning that it requires no runway (which is why the marines chose it for close in air support). :) ES
 
Originally posted by Infernal knight
Hey! If aircrafts in Civilization III became non-based, game became unreallistic. Because on base aircrafts refuells and recharge weapons, but on the ground nobody could do this! :egypt:


But with mid-air refueling and today autopilot systems. Any aircraft can strike anywhere on the Earth!

Thoughts?
 
A plane that can strike anywhere on earth...

That sounds an awful lot like a Civ3 nuke to me...

How about just giving a plane (I dunno, say a Stealth Bomber, which attacked Afghanistan from it's base on the Eastern Seaboard...) the same abilities as the nuke, only it doesn't do massive damage and self-destruct in the end?

Can it work?
 
Hey! Why self-destruct in the end? I mean aircraft must have abilitie to fly 2-5 turns and if after that time aircraft can't land on base... Well, good bye! But I think if aircraft crash, pilot can catapult and he became paratrooper! Workers must have abilitie to create little airports. On this airports aircrafts can refuel and rearm.
I think Civ III is too "ground" game - there's very little number of air units. I think Civilization must have war helicopters, more aircrafts, anti-aircraft units - SAM Missiles. Too cool to be realm... :(
 
Originally posted by Infernal knight
Hey! Why self-destruct in the end? I mean aircraft must have abilitie to fly 2-5 turns and if after that time aircraft can't land on base... Well, good bye! But I think if aircraft crash, pilot can catapult and he became paratrooper! Workers must have abilitie to create little airports. On this airports aircrafts can refuel and rearm.
I think Civ III is too "ground" game - there's very little number of air units. I think Civilization must have war helicopters, more aircrafts, anti-aircraft units - SAM Missiles. Too cool to be realm... :(

I agree, more air units are needed, but I think more unit are needed around. I have added over 47 new units:
different classes of battleships
different classes of jets and bombers
different classes of armor and tanks
I have added a airbase, but it has too move to carry units(still working on this problem)
 
Cruise missile are ground units because they can be (and often are) fired from mobile platforms that aren't important enough to be represented in the game, but are implied in the movement of the missile. They aren't important enough because they have no seperate attack abilities. Same for tactical nukes. The only exception to the rule is sumbarines, and that because they actually have other uses besides just missile transport.

Having more types of fighters, ships, and tanks wouldn't fit in with the game. Civ3's combat system is just too simple to really distinguish between such things, and while I think they need to add a cruiser unit, it would actually fill a strategic niche that is empty now. Generic units work far better. Really, the differences between all of the different modern tanks and ships and planes etc. are exxagerated due to the fact that they're in use now. I've rarely see people asking for warriors with clubs, warriors with axes, spearmen with bronze shields, spearmen with iron shields, horsemen with stirrups, horsemen without stirrups, catapults, and mangonels. The reason is because each pair of units fills the same strategic niche. Tactically, they may have great differences, but the differences are minor strategically, and Civ3 is a strategic game, so it cannot accurately reflect tactical and strategic reality at the same time. The first good game that successfully does that will be sort of like a theory that reconciles quantum mechanics and relativity.
 
Top Bottom