Air Combat...ok, but NO AIRBASES!?!?!

izmircali · October 20, 2001, 05:45

THe info on Air combat said that its totally different and iit sounds better, but it said aircraft operate from cities and carriers. So does this mean the air base improvement is out? anyone know?

Faboba · October 20, 2001, 05:55

Yes, it is. There's no indicator in the tech tree that you can build it.

As aircraft have a long range and you get aircraft carriers early, this doesn't have terribly drastic implications for the planes ( and all planets are at least 60% water )

What I'm more concerned about it paratroopers. If there are no airbases then they can only drop for cities with airports ( they can't take off from carriers )

This is going to limit their importanmce quite a bit. Fine if you're the UK in ww2 it's great, but what if you're the US. You can't use an airbase. You're going to have to conquer normandy and build an airport there before you can drop your troops......... into normandy!!!!

Unless you take over Southampton or Portsmouth and drop from there.

Sarxis · October 20, 2001, 06:00

Airbases are somewhat silly anyhow- an airfield, in the middle of nowhere?

I can't say that, on a global scale, that stand alone airfields like this are effective or realistic. Won't miss them. But what about Fortresses?

Also, makes carriers all that more important.

Faboba · October 20, 2001, 06:17

Both forts and airbases have played important roles in history,

Forts were used by Kings to supress local populations - he would base his knights in the fort where they were easily defended and then would ride out and smash a few villages before returning to the fort. They provide a good base of operations for an ancient - Industrial army without having to start up a city. Forts were only stopped being used as a useful tactic with the advent of modern artillery, what good is a fort when you can simply shell it from a mile away and destroy it?

Airbases however are obviously a more recent thing and came to the forefront of their importance in world war 2. In world war two Europe there were few ( if any ) aircraft carriers. After the threat from the luftwaffe had mostly died away the allied forces ( mainly British and American forces using squardrons of bombers comprised mainly of Lancaster and Flying Fortress type bombers respectively ) began a major campaign of bombing german cities however, due toe devestation of most English cities they based these air forces on makeshift runways in big open fields - airbases. During the Normandy landings and the attempt to secure important bridges across the Rhine ( codenamed Market Garden ) the new American tactic of dropping paratroopers was used, first by American soldiers alone then by American, British and Polish forces in the latter of these two manouvers. Again these were launched from the makeshift runways and command centres located all over the country ( as far away from the cities as possible so the German bombers couldn't find them )

So you see both forts ( in game ) and airbases ( not in game ) are both useful and historicly important in the game, and their loss will be greatly felt, especially by scenario builders. I only hope I'm wrong about the tech tree and they ARE in it.

Earthling7 · October 20, 2001, 06:19

Airbases "in the middle of nowhere" are important. The British did not launch their attacks against the Germans from cities. They had airbases out in the countryside. Same with the US. They have airforce bases littered all over their deserts.

I agree that something needed to be done to make the aircraft carrier more important, but airbases have a very important place in history.

Sarxis · October 20, 2001, 06:20

Ok, so I recant

But, wether they are in or not, I will adjust my gameplay style accordingly.

And I think I will go do some research to see if I can found out anything about airbases in CivIII.

Sarxis · October 20, 2001, 06:26

OK, take a look at this screen, and look at the fourth icon from the left in the Flight technology box. What is that? Is it an airport tower? If it is, it is probably just for the Airport improvement.

Grim Legacy · October 20, 2001, 06:59

On the one hand, I do like the concept of Airbases... but on the other hand I have to admit that I never built in Civ... ever.

Sarxis · October 20, 2001, 07:05

Maybe that is why I don't care so much about their possible exclusion. I never built them much, usually because trying to get a settler to where it needed to be built was a pain, and it usually took a very long time to build them.

I also think that the new air combat system may also be responsible for the possibility of Firaxis deciding not to include airbases.

Grim Legacy · October 20, 2001, 07:09

Agreed.

I think the new air combat system is a welcome addition. There were some 'bugs' with the older system that made it easy to 'cheat' yourself to victory with a few planes. The only offset was the expense of the units. And that wasn't enough.

Ralf · October 20, 2001, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
On the one hand, I do like the concept of Airbases... but on the other hand I have to admit that I never built in Civ... ever.

I didnt either - but in Civ-2, both the navy and the airforce played an unproportionally minor role compared to your landbased battleforces. This has been counter-balanced in Civ-3, I believe.

As for airbases; Even if you can build your air-combat units, you cant move them around the map anymore, as you could in Civ-2. I agree with Anunikoba that the flight-tech seems to provide you with some kind of tile-upgrade. Whether it is a radar-tower, airport-tower or what, I dont know.

Grim Legacy · October 20, 2001, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ralf

As for airbases; Even if you can build your air-combat units, you cant move them around the map anymore, as you could in Civ-2. I agree with Anunikoba that the flight-tech seems to provide you with some kind of tile-upgrade. Whether it is a radar-tower, airport-tower or what, I dont know.

Suspense!

Ralf · October 20, 2001, 07:27

I believe its a radar-tower. Remember those air-combat "defensive ranges" Firaxis talks about? The radar-tower maybe increases that range somehow. But Im only guessing here.

Pods · October 20, 2001, 09:06

We need an answer!

S.

Earthling7 · October 20, 2001, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Maybe that is why I don't care so much about their possible exclusion. I never built them much, usually because trying to get a settler to where it needed to be built was a pain, and it usually took a very long time to build them.

This is why I prefer the CtP's PW system. That is ONE thing that Activision did better. I used airbases in Civ, but only a few times, but they were an important part of my CtP strategy.

albiedamned · October 20, 2001, 09:49

It would seem logical that the control tower icon represents the airport city improvement, since we know airports exist and I don't see any other icon on that screen that could be it.

I'm wondering what the 4th icon in the Flight box is, the one with a red x through it.

Patriqvium · October 20, 2001, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by albiedamned
It would seem logical that the control tower icon represents the airport city improvement, since we know airports exist and I don't see any other icon on that screen that could be it.

I'm wondering what the 4th icon in the Flight box is, the one with a red x through it.

That means that Flight makes the Colossus (I think) obsolete.

izmircali · October 20, 2001, 12:32

I'm hoping airbases haven't been removed. First, because they did mention that govts will have city limits, so building an airbase could make force protection easier instead of relying on a vulverable carrier fleet (although carriers are best as a taxing of aircraft to the bases and againing taxing aircraft closer to there targets). I used air bases alot mainly when I didn't want to rely on building farflung cities and tried to play a relatively peaceful game. In civ 3 If I want to play a trading power and need to guard colonies or resources, I'll need airbases.

Ozymandous · October 20, 2001, 12:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
Yes, it is. There's no indicator in the tech tree that you can build it.

As aircraft have a long range and you get aircraft carriers early, this doesn't have terribly drastic implications for the planes ( and all planets are at least 60% water )

What I'm more concerned about it paratroopers. If there are no airbases then they can only drop for cities with airports ( they can't take off from carriers )

This is going to limit their importanmce quite a bit. Fine if you're the UK in ww2 it's great, but what if you're the US. You can't use an airbase. You're going to have to conquer normandy and build an airport there before you can drop your troops......... into normandy!!!!

Unless you take over Southampton or Portsmouth and drop from there.

Umm, you forgot one little thing. In WW2 The UK and the US had an alliance (that's why they called them allies don't 'cha know), and so the US would have been able to land their planes and launch paratroopers from any English city.

I would hope that Firaxis implemented this into Civ3 so that you can still land planes in a foreign city as long as that nation had an alliance with your nation. I guess we'll wait to see.

cyril25376 · October 20, 2001, 14:20

I am afraid there are no air bases, because of The culture/border model.
OK, lets say you have built an air base near the border of an enemy, to attack a city. The enemy borders extends and now your air base is in the border of your enemy. What happens: Will your air base be destroyed like a colony or can the air base now be used by your enemy ... ? When my idea is correct, than it is better there is no air base

Faboba · October 20, 2001, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
OK, take a look at this screen, and look at the fourth icon from the left in the Flight technology box. What is that? Is it an airport tower? If it is, it is probably just for the Airport improvement.

That is the airport.

Sheesh. I went to the effort of listing all the techs, units and improvements you could see on the tech tree screens and it gets left to fall to the bottom and then people post like this.

That's it - I'm off to bump it again. It took me three hours!

Faboba · October 20, 2001, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Umm, you forgot one little thing. In WW2 The UK and the US had an alliance (that's why they called them allies don't 'cha know), and so the US would have been able to land their planes and launch paratroopers from any English city.

I would hope that Firaxis implemented this into Civ3 so that you can still land planes in a foreign city as long as that nation had an alliance with your nation. I guess we'll wait to see.

I hope so to but we don't know.

Besides what about far off wars in hostile territory?

Lorizael · October 20, 2001, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
Yes, it is. There's no indicator in the tech tree that you can build it.

As aircraft have a long range and you get aircraft carriers early, this doesn't have terribly drastic implications for the planes ( and all planets are at least 60% water )

What I'm more concerned about it paratroopers. If there are no airbases then they can only drop for cities with airports ( they can't take off from carriers )

This is going to limit their importanmce quite a bit. Fine if you're the UK in ww2 it's great, but what if you're the US. You can't use an airbase. You're going to have to conquer normandy and build an airport there before you can drop your troops......... into normandy!!!!

Unless you take over Southampton or Portsmouth and drop from there.

We do not yet know how Paratroopers work in Civ III being as how air combat is completely different. So the lack of airbases may not be that big a deal. Do we even know if Paratroopers are in? I hope so, because I want to be able to raze the United Nations after nuking it from far away.........

Zealot · October 20, 2001, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Airbases are somewhat silly anyhow- an airfield, in the middle of nowhere?

Oh really? And what are you expecting? A military facility near civilian facilities? Like the Taliban or something?

And all those airbases on Saudi Arabia, aren't they really useful for the Americans?

I find it really strange for Airbases not to be in Civ 3, but ok...

ajbera · October 20, 2001, 15:36

Although I sincerely hope that the non-mention of airbases is a simple oversight (considering the importance of airstrips in the current international conflict, their military usefulness is now obvious to all), is it possible that air units may now be able to land in fortresses? An inelegant solution, but the lack of airstrips does seem like one of Firaxis' true (and few) missteps.

Lawrence of Arabia · October 20, 2001, 15:39

Quote:

OK, take a look at this screen,

I see in order from left to right, and airbase tile improvement, a fighter, a bomber, an airport city improvement, and the colossus.

Quote:

I am afraid there are no air bases, because of The culture/border model.
OK, lets say you have built an air base near the border of an enemy, to attack a city. The enemy borders extends and now your air base is in the border of your enemy. What happens: Will your air base be destroyed like a colony or can the air base now be used by your enemy ... ?

Well, lets take a look at this.

If your at peace, then they will take over the airbase and then expel your units to a nearest city.
If your at war, then they will take the airbase and capture or destroy your air units.
If you played civ2, you will know that when the enemy takes an airbase, it is then controlled by him.

Rasbelin · October 20, 2001, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

We do not yet know how Paratroopers work in Civ III being as how air combat is completely different. So the lack of airbases may not be that big a deal. Do we even know if Paratroopers are in?

I suppose the paratroopers are in, because without
them, that new transport helicopter would be quite
useless (unless we can transport any or certain other
landtroops (I love this idea)). Hopefully the paratroopers
are like before, but there would be an airborne function
("centry function" to be used with that copter).
Then we could finally fight remote wars, without
having to have massive armies (okay, okay, it's possible
in some ways in Civ II, but it would be better in Civ III).
I make it easier; compare to US Rangers in Afghanistan.

The helicopter might be the replacer of those airfields,
but hopefully not, because it would make the game more
surreal; IMO.

If that helicopter is the next generation of remote
combating in Civ, I'm not pleased; of course the
chopper ( or was it copter?

) is a nice concept,
but I want the old good airfields too.

Lorizael · October 20, 2001, 15:58

Yah I definetely hope some type of airfield is in. And the first thing on flight looks something like an airfield is in.

I thought I heard that transport helicoptors can carry anything. We have C-130s that can carry like two tanks at once so this makes sense.

Choppers are another way of saying motocycle

See you have helicoptors
Then... coptors
Then coppers!

Ahhh the evolution of language... I have no idea why motorcyles are called choppers...

Earthling7 · October 20, 2001, 16:34

You could send your units to friendly (allied) bases in SMACCC, so I guess that would still be in. It gave the alliance a sence of value, being able to defend other's cities.

Gyromancer · October 20, 2001, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

Choppers are another way of saying motocycle

...

Ahhh the evolution of language... I have no idea why motorcyles are called choppers...

Actually chopper can be used both to mean helicopter and motorcycle.

The usage for motorcycle came about in the 50's (maybe late 40's) when some members of motorcycle gangs would "chop" a regular motorcycle and make its body longer. (Not a very good idea for your long term chiropractic health.....

)