How to Protect Formers from Enemy Air?

[Yxklyx]

Last couple of games I've been losing formers to enemy air. What's the best defense? Placing your own fighters on sentry mode seems like a bad idea and keeping a fighter on top of each former takes up too many resources. I supposed I should build some infantry defense units for the formers - which is best SAM or AAA?

[mrdynamic]

I run into this allot also. If I am good at capturing mindworms I place a mindworm on top each former as a defender which seems to prevent enemy attacks quite well. I have tried armored formers, but seems like it is not enough to defend against attacks. If you can build SAM rovers or SAM choppers (choppers are best for getting back into a safe base afterwards) at least you can pick off the planes as they hit a former, I consider that a fair trade since formers are usually cheaper than planes. Otherwise I move my formers into my bases on hold until I can get the enemy under control ... move the war to their land or get a treaty ......

[TresXF]

my strategy:

inside base radius: a squadron of interceptors. they'll repell any scrambles (H-mode).

countryside: infantry with anti aircraft capability and good armor to protect your formers. maybe an airfield with intercepors in the vicinity.

[Yxklyx]

But when fighters intercept isn't the combat resolved attack strength vs attack strength? Seems to me that fighters take lots of damage when intercepting bombers as opposed to hardly taking any damage when just attacking them normally.

[TresXF]

usually i use armored interceptors. bombers ain't no match for them. never had really probs with those.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Regarding resolution of air combats with air units

Fighter vs. bomber in air - Attack strength vs. attack strength

Fighter vs bomber on the ground - attack strength vs. armor

Bomber vs. fighter in the air - not allowed

Bomber vs fighter on the ground - attack strength vs. attack strength (fighter scrambles automaticallly)

As a consequence the only time a fighter has use for armor is if it is caught in a base by land based units else it always attacks and defends via weapon strength. Rule of thumb for me is to NEVER armor air units as they are god awful expensive and have very little extra value for the cost.

Og

[RedFred]

Oh no! Not the dreaded armored interceptors debate! (I never armor aircraft, my logic is that it is too expensive for something that doesn't often come into play)

The best tactic for saving those formers is total air superiority. But if your enemy does get some aircraft launched, armor is often effective especially if you happen to be mining a rocky tile.

Despite this, I seldom use armored formers. I consider formers to be like kleenex - cheap, useful and if need be, disposable. No, Mr. Design Workshop new unit producer, I don't want your fancy super fungicidals!

My suggestion is use all the money that you were going to spend armoring your formers, armoring your interceptors, SAMing your rovers or whatever and instead spend it on a decent attack force to push your enemy back out of range.

[Flubber]

armour on planes also comes into play when attacked by SAM units-- but I still NEVER armour them

as to tactics I agree with Redfred. Playing defense outside a base is usually a losing proposition. SAM units are effective to take out the bombers after they hit, but I find that the best protection is to bomb the crap out of the bases that are attacking you. Pound them until THEY are defending

[TresXF]

armor & jets

i know that you don't HAVE to armor them - but usually i using interceptors as multi-purpose-fighters. air and ground attacks. and since i'm a builder and scientist who don't like much military they are useful to me

[RedFred]

Originally posted by TresXF
armor & jets

i know that you don't HAVE to armor them - but usually i using interceptors as multi-purpose-fighters. air and ground attacks. and since i'm a builder and scientist who don't like much military they are useful to me

Well, I admit in special situations (tech superiority, running FM with drone implications for building non-interceptor air units) that the idea has some merit. But I usually have higher priorities as far as spending the ecs or mins for the armor.

[johndmuller]

Fighter vs. bomber in air - Attack strength vs. attack strength

I hate to disagree with the notable SMAC personage, Ogie Oglethorpe, but having endured several of those dreaded threads that RedFred alluded to earlier, I'm pretty sure that if a fighter attacks a bomber in the air it is the fighter's weapon strength versus the bomber's armor - the weapon versus weapon is only in the case of two fighters (or as was stated, an attacking bomber versus a scrambling fighter, although I'm not exactly sure detail-wise, how that case is treated). Thus, of the two types of aircraft, armor seems to be more useful on the strike a/c than on the SAM a/c.

I used to armor my interceptors all the time - but that was mostly when I was using SMAC v0 and aircraft armor was a lot cheaper. It could be my imagination, but it seems to me that it was a lot harder to lose one of them too; perhaps they also changed something in the combat algorithm along with the costs.

Cost and effectiveness aside, I still armor interceptors sometimes, maybe just with that bright red synthmetal armor so that I can tell the d*** things apart from the strike NJ's and don't do stupid things with them that lead to leaving them outside a base and/or out of fuel; the same, if not more, goes for choppers. It really ****es me off when I do that - they should have made the SAM attribute much more NOTICABLE somehow.

As to armoring formers, sometimes it doesn't cost any more to add armor to the design, so it is hard to resist, and I think that a totally unarmored former has a 50% non-combatant penalty and if that is true, then you are getting even more for your (zero) investment. On the other hand, upgrading to an armored design is more expensive than to an equivalent unarmored one, so you may have to pay the price in upgrade costs or by using an extra DW slot.

Sometimes I protect formers with Clean-AAA-armored infantry or rovers (and occasionally some crawlers too), but as has been said, if you have a problem with your formers getting bombed, you may really have a bigger problem than that and taking the offensive is likely called for.

[mrdynamic]

Originally posted by johndmuller
- they should have made the SAM attribute much more NOTICABLE somehow.

I do that to myself quite often also. The only way I can tell them apart is if I rename the SAM thing to DOG.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

John D.

You are absolutely correct. (Brain cramp and lack of playing SMAC for ages.) Fighter vs. Bomber in air is resolved at Fighter weapon vs. Bomber Armor. I humbly apologize for the above misinformation. That being said a fighter type is very unlikely to have to use it's armor except in the rare situation that it is called upon to defend itself vs. ground unit (i.e. it is caught inside it's base.) This of course if for noodlejets only as a chopper outside the base is fair game to any unit except a probe team as the chopper is considered grounded.

Being away so long looks like I missed some thread doosies of "to armor or not to armor your noodles".

You da man JohnD!

Og

[k.k.fly]

AAA is for defending against aircrafts, it enhances the defense rating of equipped units.

SAM is for attacking aircrafts, it enables equipped units to have the ability to attack air units.

If I have invented armor 6, I would build few infantries of 1-5-1 or 1-4-1 with AAA ability and place on my formers.

In addition to that, if have weapon 6, I would build few rovers with 6-1-2 or 5-1-2 with SAM ability as mobile flak vehicles, making sure those attacking aircrafts don't go home without a fight.

You can also place your interceptors in cities using "automated air defense" (ctrl+shift+B), and if your formers are near your bases, interceptors will scramble and intercept enemy attackers.

If your formers are away from bases, or you want to protect your supply convoys, which are extracting resources away from your base grids, build an airbase nearby and use automated air defense too.

I would use the infantries and rover combo, because it is cheaper, and expandable.

Ps. Instead of automated air defense, you may also use "put units on alert" on your interceptor using shift + L, but sometimes your interceptors won't scramble to intercept.

[Yxklyx]

Yes, fighters vs bombers is generally done by comparing fighter's attack vs bomber's defense, plus the fighter gets a +100% modifier for SAM - so typically the odds are around 20:1 with the fighter hardly taking any damage; HOWEVER, when a fighter INTERCEPTS it's fighter's attack vs bomber's attack +100% for SAM - so these odds are typically only around 2:1 hence the fighter will take lots of damage when intercepting (same goes for intercepting copters). Relying on interception is not a very good idea.

[MattyBoy]

Not sure if this applies in MP, but...

I don't mind if they remove my formers, as long as I am in a position to go in and remove the offender before they return to base. I can always make another former cheaply and I'm just glad they didn't kill something more expensive.

If I am not in a position to kill off enemy planes that have ended their turn on my turf, I obviously have a more serious problem.

[vitamin j]

I gotta agree with those on the "better go attack whoever's bombing you" side of the fence. If you're playing the AI, and you just can't be bothered, I like the 1-4-1 (clean)/AAA rover. I build them as scout rovers and upgrade with cash. I seldom armor formers, but usually keep an armored design in the workshop for emergencies. If you insist on having your formers work within range of airstrikes, you're probably going to lose a few... You could always have them go work someplace else.

[aaglo]

Usually in my games I tend to keep my "homeland" formers as non-armored. But when I go to hostile lands, conquering enemy cities, I tend to send there (after capturing some bases) some heavily armored formers BECAUSE AI ALLWAYS DOES THE WORST TERRAFORMING EVER!!! Jeezuz, why even bother to build a farm and mine in the desert where forest is the only option...

Often I also like to armor my supply transport, especially when they are on outer field or shore - and add trance or resonance-armor (SMAX-thingie) on them.

I have never tried to armor noodles or choppers... Maybe I should try some on interceptors.

[T-hawk]

Originally posted by Yxklyx
HOWEVER, when a fighter INTERCEPTS it's fighter's attack vs bomber's attack +100% for SAM - so these odds are typically only around 2:1 hence the fighter will take lots of damage when intercepting (same goes for intercepting copters). Relying on interception is not a very good idea.

Incorrect. There is no +100% Air-to-Air bonus applied when an interceptor (any air unit with SAM, including a copter) is defending against an air attack. This is true regardless of whether the defending interceptor got there by scrambling.

In fact, the case of an interceptor defending vs air seems to actually be handled by the game as if it were an Artillery Duel. You match attack strength vs attack strength, most other modifiers don't apply (sensor, for instance), and you do NOT get the "Confirm Odds" box if you have that preference enabled.

[Yxklyx]

I didn't write that very well there, The attacking SAM is the one that gets the +100%.

[T-hawk]

Originally posted by Yxklyx
I didn't write that very well there, The attacking SAM is the one that gets the +100%.

Neither plane gets +100% for Air-to-Air if the combat is attack vs attack values. An attacking SAM gets the +100% if the defender DOES NOT have SAM.

[bondetamp]

Originally posted by k.k.fly
AAA is for attacking aircrafts, it enables equipped units to have the ability to track and attack air units.

SAM is for defending against aircrafts, it enhances the defense rating of equipped units.

I just want to say that it is excactly the other way around. AAA is for defending against aircrafts and SAM is for attacking aircrafts.

Just a small hickup in an otherwise useful post, but I figured I should react before some poor soul posts a save game where he has 1.6.1 SAM CLEAN units in every base wondering what he's doing wrong.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by k.k.fly
AAA is for attacking aircrafts, it enables equipped units to have the ability to track and attack air units.

SAM is for defending against aircrafts, it enhances the defense rating of equipped units.
.

p.s I could mess up the defination of AAA and SAM. they are confusing and i don't have the manual right now.

yup-- you got them backwards AAA enhances defence and gives a +100% to the defense rating of a ground unit so a 4 armour with AAA will defend as an 8.

SAM is the offensive ability without which a ground unit cannot attack aircraft in the air. When a ground unit uses SAM the aircraft defends with its armour and is usually dead dead dead.

[Sikander]

I only build choppers for strike aircraft and noodles for interceptors. This saves me from losing anything in the confusion.

AAA doubles the defense (armor) value against air attack. Interestingly, it requires that the unit have a weapon (even a "1" strength) in the weapon slot. Thus probes, formers, transports cannot have AAA.

I also like to beat the snot out of the enemy rather than defending, though I tend to build interceptors to handle the occasional impertinent interloper. Choppers are great for clearing out enemy airbases, especially once you have cleared out any of those pesky AAA defenders. Then it's like Pearl Harbor, you just strafe the planes on the ground, and they die in droves.

If you build closely spaced bases like I like to, then you can usually get away with building only one aircraft per base, and take those built in interior bases and move them to the periphery where the fighters can prevent incursions and the bombers / choppers can attack enemy airbases. Against the AI, this works very well.

[MattyBoy]

Sometimes I use formers to improve the efficiency of an attack force in some way (road to a monolith or enemy city, bunker or sensor).

In this kind of attack I really don't want my formers killed and I'll pile them with my other military units and include my strongest defenders in the stack.

...if the AI was smarter I would have to include a strong artillery in the stack too.

[Earwicker]

I just replace them and keep up the counteroffensive to clear out nearby enemy bases. Losing a former or supply crawler is a better trade than having that aircraft take out a Police Infantry defender, then have me lose a whole turn's productivity to drone riots.

[big_canuk]

I think most posters here got it right(Especially Earwicker, Vitamin J, MattyBoy, Flubber and Redfred). But it may still not be clear:

A: Formers:

1. Armouring formers is *not* an option. (Just more mins lost in the attack). Better to trade formers for attackers, or just move the formers out of range.
2. Covering formers with AAA infantry is seldom an option. It may be worthwhile on attack(using formers for roads, fungus, bunkers, etc.), but is *not* worthwhile on defense. (Too costly, because the attacker can concentrate, while the defender must spread out)
3. Protecting formers(or crawlers) with interceptors is only worthwhile in limited circumstances.
-a. When you are at tech parity, and long range suicide choppers are harrassing you. (You have more hit points so should win)
-b. You have tech superiority, and will win anyway, and are not bothering to, or have not yet taken the fight to the opponent.

Protecting formers(crawlers) with interceptors "in range" works poorly. Whenever I see a interceptor in range, I send out a penetrator (or chopper if close enough) to take it out. Note the penetrator or chopper costs 2 rows *less* than the interceptor. I target a crawler if possible. If I loose, I send out another to finish the job.(Works even better if I use an elite missle against a green chaos! Morale seems to affect air combat even more than normal combat)
Take the example of a 4 row noodle against a 6 row interceptor.
1/2 the time it takes 2 noodles for me to bring down the interceptor (8 rows total), 1/2 the time 1(4 rows total) So it is an even trade. A crawler dies automatically if underneath, so that is a possible bonus. If a couple of formers are underneath, and I have the range, the second attacker will be a suicide chopper and the 4 rows(or more! if they are armoured) will be bonus.
If multiple interceptors are involved and extra range is available, the advantage just grows, because the cleanup man can be a chopper taking down multiple interceptors. Note, to get his compensation of taking out your second noodle, your opponent must have enough interceptors left in range to do so.

Again, short answer: interceptors are not for defense. They are for attack:
-a. covering units where it is not possible to have a noodle on top(use a penetrator, cause if you use an interceptor *it* will defend), with a stout AAA infantry underneath. The reason this is preferable is a SAM unit *must* attack, and if it is an interceptor fights at 1/2 strength against the best AAA infantry defender. (usually impossible odds). This is why in MP, one *needs* some SAM rovers, or elite SAM infantry. They can attack avoiding both the 1/2 strength, and the AAA.
-b. taking out sensors(and maybe other improvements)

B: Armouring Penetrators:

There is only 1 good use for armouring penetrators. The 1-2t-10 is useful for defense against worm assault. It is an air unit, so defends at 1:1 instead of 3:2 basic. A *very* limited use may be a police unit that would have "air" range (10-14), rather than drop range (8), but I have never built one in MP.

The above is from experience, and actual use. I would like to hear from anyone who was loosing in a MP game, and used armoured formers, or interceptor units to win. (SP doesn't count, cause you will win anyway, it will just take you longer )

bc

[johndmuller]

Doesn't the classic scenario have it that the Bombers are the meat and potatoes and the Fighters (of the Target country) try to pick off the Bombers before they can deliver the goods. The Bomber people may bring along their own Fighters to stop the Target's Fighters from picking off their bombers.

I don't think that the game will model that exactly right, although I don't know what would happen if you first moved both a Bomber and a Fighter of the Attackers right up next to the Target before the Bomber committed to the attack. In other words, we set up the situation where the Bomber is in the Fighter-escort's range, trying to come as close as possible to "stacking" the Attacking Bomberer and Fighter. When the Bomber makes its final move to attack the adjacent tile, and the Defender's Fighter scrambles to attack the Bomber, would the Bomber's Fighter-Escort scramble to attack the Defender's Fighter?

The lack of any control over the scrambling function is a real PIA.
And when they throw in the interceptor bug too, don't you just them?

[big_canuk]

Simple "solution" to make it more "real life" (not that I believe games should mimic real life, at the expense of playability), would be to model real life more realistically. In real life, fighters are smaller, and cheaper. Bombers are expensive. If the game made penetraters *more* expensive than interceptors, then of course, interceptor defenders and cover would be viable.

And thanks JM, you brought up another offensive use for interceptors. Covering Penetrators, that otherwise would be shot down easily. (Just make sure you have enough to properly protect or you will loose both)

Which makes me think of another tactical goody: When shooting down those penetrators and their interceptor cover that just attacked your base, do it from *outside* the base. Then he will have to use *expensive* interceptors to kill you back. If you do it from inside the base, then she can use cheap noodles, and even though your interceptors are hurt, they will scramble anyway. Best may be to use lifters(chopper interceptors), and then park them back out of range.

[vitamin j]

I don't remember the exact details, but I use SAM rovers fairly often and have noticed some strange behavior. I'm pretty sure if a SAM rover and a AAA unit are in a stack together, and the stack is attacked by an interceptor (and/or bomber?), the SAM unit will defend - using its armor value! Unless you've used the "designate defender" order on the AAA unit. Can anyone verify this? I know I started using the designate defender order a lot more when I noticed this, or something like this...