The Role of Air Units in Combat

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

I think that Civ III needs to review the role of fighter, bombers and helicopters in combat.
Firstly, it should be noted that, until recently, the main role of fighter has been as bomber support and to clear the air of opposing fighters.
Bombers, on the other hand, have been mostly used to destroy enemy airfields, command and control facilities and cities-strategic bombing!
Assault helipcopters are the key air unit used in ground support, as they can get in close and even slug it out with a tank! I feel this needs to be more accurately reflected in Civ III, as follows:

1) All air units should have 2 firepower ratings, one against air units and a seperate one for ground attacks. Modern air units would probably have almost identical firepower ratings!
2) Air units should also have a seperate defense rating for air combat and ground combat, to make it more difficult for ground units to significantly damage air units (though AA guns should be able to attack air units using their air-combat defense ratings). Note the choppers would probably have little difference between air defense and ground defense ratings.
3) Bombers should be able to conduct “Strategic Bombing missions” against static ground targets. This would be useful way of destroying ground based infrastructure, and would be particularly useful if supply lines are in use in the game.
4) Fighters should also be able to conduct “strategic ground attacks”, but would not be as successful as bomber units (at least until the modern age!)
5) Dive bombers should combine the best features of fighters and bombers (as would the modern Jet Fighter/Bomber)
6) Assault helicopters should be almost as significantly armoured as a tank/mech Inf. unit, to reflect its strength as a ground attack unit!
7) Against ground units, fighter and bombers (before the stealth-age), should not be able to reduce a ground unit to less than 50% of its “current” hit points (making it hard for air units to actually destroy units). Multiple waves of air assaults, however, would be able to get ground units well into the red! The amount of damage air units can score against ground forces should depend on the ground forces mobility and local terrain, as much as it does on the units armour and defense ratings. Ground units in cities, however, should be counted as static units, thus making them vulnerable to complete destruction by aerial attack
8) Most of the above rules should probably also be applied to air units vs. naval units.
Like ground units, naval units in port should be susceptible to destruction by fighters/bombers (the Pearl Harbour effect!)
9) Another concept which needs to be considered is "Air Superiority" Basically, the number of sorties you can send your air units on would depend on your Air Superiority.
This would be based on factors such as:
Your Aerospace Tech level.
The number of Airfields you control
The number of enemy interceptors (fighters, SAM's and AA's) between you and your target.
The "Home-Ground" Advantage.
10) Combat should probably run in the following order:
a) Air Vs. Air
b) Air Vs. Ground
c) Ground Vs. Ground
You will note that I mentioned the concept of supply lines above. This is not the first time I’ve mentioned it, and I feel it should be brought up again here. Basically ground units should NOT be able to go into enemy territory at will, but should require some sort of support mechanism. Essentially units should have a maximum “Range” which would reflect how far a unit can penetrate into enemy territory unsupported! Beyond this range they would need to build a “supply depot”, which would operate like a Colony in reverse. When connected by road/rail to one of your cities, a supply depot would allow your units to extend their range. Depending on technology, you might need to build these depots every 500-1500km (and they must all be joined up to each other by road/rail!). These supply lines would be vulnerable to attack by enemy ground/air units (attacks by Cossacks on his supply lines is one reason why Napolean failed to capture Moscow!). Obviously, if you capture an enemy city, this becomes a “de-facto” supply depot, and unit range will be determined from this point.
I feel this would give a new strategic element to combat, and make you consider the length and defense of your lines of supply in any future battles/wars, as well as giving a new role for fighters and bombers!
Anyway, be glad to know what people think of these ideas

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well well...
First off, I want Firxais to get rid of the Fortify option available to flying airplanes. Now since thats out of the way, back to buisness.

Throughout the whole of ww2, fighters had 2 main roles, and the Axis and Allies used the two different roles. Germany had primairly a tactical airforce. The stukas were the artillery. A tactical airforce is supposed to get local air superiority and to assist the ground troops by spotting possible problems up ahead and straphing/bombing bunkers, command posts tanks etc... A tactical airforce does not need long range fighters, because (a) Blitzkrieg war meant that you were always fighting on the enemy's territory and when you captured an airfield it was always close to the battle lines, and (b) there was little need to go confront the enemy at high altitudes in dogfights because everything revolved around the ground. When Germany when to bomb england, their main fighter (me-109) only had about 10-15 minutes over the target area. This lack of Germany to develop a strategic airforce meant that they couldnt not possibly effectivly bomb London into submission.

The British and Americans had a more strategic airforce. They're fighters were not designed to hit targets on the ground. They were used to confront the enemies fighters and to escort bombers onto their targets. The later use of drop tanks on the p-51s enabled them to become a true fighter escort.

In modern times, the line between fighters and bombers has been blurred. Many fighters are now called attack planes because they are meant as a sort of fighter bomber. THis is because flying them off of a carrier is better than having a fixed base somewhere which probably has a dozen nukes pointed at it. With the advent of smart weapons, a fighter can be far away and still do a lot of damage. There is no need to get the plane over a city because it can hit it from far away. Fighters have become a strategic weapon which can be used tactically, but is probably best used (in civ terms) in attacking ships, and cities. The tactical airplane of today is the helicopter. Like what Aussi said, it is there to slug it out with the tanks, troops, and all other ground units. It is supposed to gain local air superiority and then move on.

In Civ2 (and im assuming civIII), this would be very hard to impliment because there are only two types of airplanes per age. The bomber and the fighter ( ) The only way a player could create a tactical airforce is by building no bombers and only fighters. The problem with this is that if the player chooses wisely, he never has to lose a fighter because by the end of its turn it has to be back at its base. It seems that fighters can destroy with impunity. Helicpoters stay in the field the entire time so there is a chance to hit it back.

(1) The two firepower ratings would not be good, because then you would have to have two firepower ratings for everything. Instead, you should use the LAS system where everything has a firepower rating against Land Sea and Air. The 'old' fighters would have a higher L and A rating. THe 'old' bombers would have a higher L rating. The modern fighter would have equal rating for everything. The modern bomber would have a higher L and S rating.
The Chopper would have a high L, and medium S, and 0 A (reflecting that speed is a killer in the air and that choppers are relativly slow.) Further more, bombers should have a penalty when attacked by fighters, and choppers should have a penalty when attacked by fighters. This LAS system would prevent land units from doing large amounts of damge, would make players add mobile sams or AA units (if they exist in the field) into their stacks.

(2) I think that we already know that bombers have to bombard option (just like ships) THis is intended to 'soften' up the defenses without losing your bomber. The only problem is that in ww2, the bombers had to actually be over the target, meaning that they would take damage from the AA guns stationed around the city. I think that they should have bombard for only the modern bombers.

(3) Fighters should not have an option to 'strafe' the ground. Rather, they would just have a higher L in the LAS system.

(4) Dive bombers would be a great addition to the game, but I don't know if they are going to be implemented (especially with the idea that more refined is better) Dive Bombers should have a High L and S, but a low A. This is also almost the same as giving them an option to 'strafe.'

(6) For choppers, see LAS system

(7) I agree with this point, but then it would require a change from the civ2 engine. In civ2, every battle was resovled, while here it is not (both units are still alive)

(8) No comment

(9) No. Bad idea, too complicated

(10) See #9

There are some very good ideas in here, but some could be dropped. I hope this post isnt too long

[Henrik]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
5) Dive bombers should combine the best features of fighters and bombers (as would the modern Jet Fighter/Bomber)

Actually the Stuka was one of the most innefective weapon ever constructed, precision bombing needs to be done during the day, but that is impossible due to enemy fighter and flak defence.
And at night precision bombing is useless (perhaps not today but it certainly was back then).
The only effect these things supposedly had was to terrify the population, they actually did a pretty poor job there too.
On the other hand they where used extinsively in propaganda (where they managed to frighten quite a few civilians).

I guess modern dive bombing would be ok, but to have a powerfull divebomber around WW2 would be very innacurate.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Every weapong has its place, and saying that Stukas were infeective is completly wrong. Yes, they were useless in the bombing raids of London. They were too slow. Stukas are to be used in a tactical battlefield. The blitzkrieg is the best sort of tactical battlefield ot use it on because the enemy is always retreating and never has the chacen to set up AA. In civ2 (and civ3) this would be hard to impliement.

Stukas were used as artillery whenever the Germans had local air superiority (see bombing of Warsaw, Stalingrad, etc) The second tht enemy fighters came in to confront the Stukas, they were dead meat. This is reflected in the LAS system (low A)
(plus it had those cool sound things which made sound when it dove, another way to frighten ppl, kinda like the V1)

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,

First up, I'd like to say that, on reviewing my original post, Lawrence is right to suggest that my Air superiority model would be too unwieldy! Instead, I think that interceptors (fighters, AA's and SAM's) should act as the coastal fortress is supposed to-ie. when an air unit comes within sufficient range, they will be automatically attacked by these units, and that airfields should be susceptible to destruction by enemy air-power (and this should seriously effect the attack capabilities of air-units, as it did intially for Britain during WWII).
The LAS model put forward by Lawrance would also be an elegent solution to many of the difficulties I have with the Civ II air-combat system.
Another solution would be to allow air units to group into wings (the same way as ground units will be able to group into armies). This would allow players to use fighters in a support role!
I feel that air technology should also be more incremental: starting with bi-winged fighters, then standard turboprop-based fighters and bombers (WWII), next would be early jets (1950's-1960's), then modern jets and finally stealth aircraft! There should also be some distinction between the helicopters used in the Korean/Vietnam wars and those used in modern battlefields (like greater armour and improved firepower!)-there also needs to be a more incremental increase in the MP's of all air units over time!
I still believe that air-units should have a higher defense rating against land-based units or, failing that, air-units should be invulnerable to ground attack (except by SAM's and AA guns).
I also feel that bombers and fighters should be able to decide whether they wish to make a general bombing attack, or target a specific improvement or unit.
There needs to be a aerial transport unit in the game to replace the ridiculous "Air-lift" maneuver. Like all other air units, the transport would be susceptible to interception (making air-transport a much riskier proposition!. The main purpose of an air-transport, however, would be to allow certain ground units to make a "Paradrop" attack. I think that such units should either get a bonus to their attack/defense strengths or else get a "Free" attack against enemy ground units!
Lastly, I think that air units should be allowed to move, attack, then move again. This would eliminate the rather foolish sight of a bomber sitting over a city for a whole turn (and, of course, ground units should be able to attack any ground unit sitting next to, or under, a friendly bomber/fighter!)
Anyway, thats all I've got to say on this issue for now, but thanks guys for helping me to give more thought to the suggestions I've made!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well, heres my list of counter proposals to yours

• That AA/SAM idea seems like a good one. It would have a sort of ZOC where when your fighter enters it, it has to do combat.
• In one of the pics, there was a biplane. Now, i dont know exactly if it was a unit, or a lost wonder, or something., but it was definatly a bi-plane.
• The ground uits (like warrior) would of course have a 0 A and 0 S capability. Also, land units can't attck air units in civ2 anyways, so you don't have to worry about that.
• Airlifts could be intercepted in Civ2. You just had to station an airplane in the path of the airlift.
• ww2 bobmers were lucky to get over the target city There should be only an option to target a certain imrpovemnt with the modern bomber, and never with fighters. This is because fighters in Civ2 and 3 have been oversimplified to tactical aire to ground or air to air combat. Not air to city.
• More is not neccesarly better. If you had 3 possible upgrades for each bomber or fighter, you woulod never have time to use it because the next upgrade would be right around the corner.
• Check out my post about Paratroopers. 'I want Paras'

Well, thats all for now.