Air superiority "bug" solved?

[HugoHillbilly]

The last couple of days was the first time I have gotten into modern war and have been using planes. Ive made a few observations that should hopefully throw some light onto this seemingly bug.

I dont think it is a bug as much as a misrepresentation of the manual.

It seems to me that Fighters running and Air superiority mission will only defend the ACTUAL city square, allowing bombers to wreak havoc on the countryside.

The AI has never actually tried bombing one of my cities directly so I couldnt test it on my side, but most of my bombers hitting AI cities were shot down while I could destroy the improvements around them to my liking.

The manual claims that Air superiority patrols half of the fighters operational range, and whether this was changed post-manual due to game balancing or it is an actuall bug I cant tell you.

Another note is I havent seen any Firaxis response to Air Superiority, maybe at least an explanation of how its supposed to work would be nice.

Anyway just my observations, it would be great if anyone can offer some (constructive) feedback or other observations.

[m_m_x]

at first i realy hoped that i was doing somthing wrong...but it is a B U G......

[Barchan]

I don't know, the AI seems pretty adept at intercepting *my* missions in the squares around *his* cities. I've never had an air interception. Not one, not even with jet fighters against normal bombers. For turn after turn the Japanese destroyed everything around my city (even the roads!) while my fighter jet pilots, duly ordered to perform Air Superiority missions, slumbered peacefully in their hangers. Meanwhile, I attempt to use a jet fighter to take out a Roman mine; his prop plane shot me down.

Mark my words: it's a bug!

[Wexu]

It's a B U G

Firaxis has already confirmed it.

*Waiting for the first patch...*

[shammy]

uhh.. a regular fighter shot down your f-15? :P laugh

i would like to see that one in real life too

[Barchan]

Well, it wasn't an F-15, but it was still a jet. Gawd, even if it was an F-86 it should still smoke a piston-powered fighter. I'd say that it must've been one hell of a pilot, but I've seen it happen too many times. Actually, I think my intercepted jets have downed piston fighters exactly once. But I've lost about five jets so far.

[Pyrodrew]

Since Air Superiority is a confirmed BUG, what is the best defense against enemy planes currently?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Since Air Superiority is a confirmed BUG, what is the best defense against enemy planes currently?

Sending in the ground troops to crush their cities and destroy their planes on the ground.

[FrostyBoy]

I found a bug that crashes the system

try this:

load a fighter onto a carrier

take the carrier somewhere next to land and try to move one of the fighters on to the land. I bet ur system will crash.

I STILL have no idea what Carriers are used for, how can I do anything with the fighers on carriers if I can't even get access to them?

The other thing is.. what's up with the cruise missle? it can travel on roads, railroads? how do I actually use it against a city? it won't even fly over water. sigh

[Trachmyr]

Right-click on the carrier to wake the fighters/bombers, then you can use them as normal.

Still no idea what cruis missiles are for, you can't load them on anything (at least I haven't been able to)... and their range is pitiful. They really need to be tweaked... the editor needs a new unit ability "Can Carry Cruise Missiles"... then add that ability to carriers/nuke subs/aegis cruisers.

[LaRusso]

cruise missiles are used like one shot airplanes. they are pretty powerful and it is good they do not have a bigger range - they would be too powerful. perhaps one more square could be ok.
i saw how a cruise missile was shot by the archer....if you move it around, it is transported and acts pretty much like artillery
they should be able to load to subs, etc. are they working on it in a patch? iam afraid, however, that they will become too powerful as a fleet of subs could sink whole task forces.....

[PGM]

Originally posted by LaRusso
[cruise missiles] should be able to load to subs, etc. are they working on it in a patch? iam afraid, however, that they will become too powerful as a fleet of subs could sink whole task forces.....

You can load 1 cruise missile into a nuclear sub.


edit: sorry, I made a mistake, you can only load Tactical Nukes into Nuclear subs, not cruise missiles.

[Zizka]

>>they should be able to load to subs, etc. are they working on it in a
>>patch? iam afraid, however, that they will become too powerful as a
>>fleet of subs could sink whole task forces.....

I thought that was exactly the purpose behind tomahawk missles for sub to unload salvo on a surface group. Indeed one of the biggest "fears" in the cold war era was teh potential havoc Russian subs could make in the north atlantic. LOL That's why the who Kursk thing wa ssuch an embarassment.. the Russians have long prided themselve sin (once) having top notch navy (well at least the subs)

Still its bad that subs and planes cannot "sink" ships. I think that is horrible game oversight. Balance or no subs are just useless in the game.. Where would germany have been without her subs (still beaten but likely quicker..)

Z

[Deathray]

In real life a sub will not take down a destroyer, cruiser or battleship unless it get pretty damn lucky. It should, however, be able to take down an aircraft carrier or transport.

[TCO]

You don't understand the capabilities of submarines. I spent several years of my life as a submarine officer. Submarines can easily take out most surface ships. Actually we usually just call them targets, not surface ships.

[SirSebastian]

What if they give subs the ability to attack without being attacked back? Seems reasonable. Maybe Firaxis can just flag them ZoC? I don't know.. haven't played very much Civ 3 yet... why in the world am I posting instead of playing... be back in 12 hours.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by GP
You don't understand the capabilities of submarines. I spent several years of my life as a submarine officer. Submarines can easily take out most surface ships. Actually we usually just call them targets, not surface ships.

yup
but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance

[Altuar]

Originally posted by LaRusso


yup
but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance

Dunno, with ships I tend to consider them as individual units .. i.e, one bship represented is one bship imagined.. Whereas with most modern units I go for battalion level.

[Grumbold]

Unless you want the world naval forces in Civ 3 to barely rival some 3rd world dictators idea of a navy, the ship units have got to represent naval task forces or battle groups headed up by one or more ships of the type depicted. Thats why a lot of the rules desiged to work on a macro level (like being unable to bomb and completely sink ship units because not even at Pearl Harbour or Midway did everything get sunk) do not make any sense at all when you want to build smaller scale scenarios and 1 unit really does equal one actual ship.

[Altuar]

True, true.. but how else to explain the individual presensce of ships? I mean, Bship, destoryer, sub, carrier, AEGIS cruiser.... And the carrier battlegroup, with cruiser and destroyer escorts and shawdowing subs having a defense of only 8?

[LaRusso]

OMG
cmon, those are abstractions. like hanging gardens and oracle. it's all for fun

[TCO]

Originally posted by LaRusso


yup
but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance

Oh that's fine. I'm just reacting to the earlier poster who seemed to be talking about real life. And he has never "looked through the cross-hairs"...if you know what I mean....

I'm not making any comment about how the game should be. Just don't make a historical accuracy argument off bad info...

[Venger]

Originally posted by Altuar


Dunno, with ships I tend to consider them as individual units .. i.e, one bship represented is one bship imagined.. Whereas with most modern units I go for battalion level.

I agree here, the ships are a single transport - otherwise their cost doesn't make sense (a squadron of carriers would cost more than most countries defense budgets).

Venger

[Sevorak]

The ship units MUST represent individual ships.

Compare a US CVBG's combat elements:

1 Carrier
2 Ticonderoga class AEGIS CG
1 Arleigh Burke class AEGIS DDG
1 Spruance class DD
1 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG
2 Los Angeles class SSN

The now defunct SAG built around a BB was virtually identical, except for the replacement of the Carrier by the Battleship.

Now, let's look at the units Civ style.

Each of them includes 2 AEGIS cruisers (15.12.5) and two destroyers (15.10.5). They also include 1 frigate (not represented, but a fair assumption would be around 12.7.5) and two nuclear submarines (6.4.3).

Look at the Carrier unit and the Battleship unit.

Apparently, the one unit at the core of a battlegroup matters so much that its offense suffers if the core ship lacks guns. The Carrier is 1.8.4, the battleship 18.12.5. Suddenly, when a Battleship is at the head of the battlegroup, its attack suddenly increases by 1800%? Its defence gets 50% better when a Battleship's the core of a group? It moves faster with a Battleship at the core of the group? If you believe this, you're taking abstraction to new highs.

-Sev

[Osprey]

This is a bad bug considering it's the only defense for bomber attacks

[Altuar]

How did this thread come up again?