Range of aircraft in CivIII

Shale · April 19, 2002, 16:39

Range of Aircraft-can they be drastically increased?

My biggest complaint with Civ3 is that the limmitted range of aircraft really ruin the whole modern combined arms approach to fighting wars in the modern age. I can understand that some early fighters were just short range defensive weapons, but within a decade we were building bombers that had 10,000 mile ranges.

It's impossible to use bombers as long range strategic weapons in this game, especially since it doesn't allow you to build airfields, or carry cruise missles ON THE BOMBERS.

IS THERE ANY way to increase the range of the aircraft? And I mean by a factor of like 3 or 4 in the case of the Stealth bomber.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, or else it's back to C2P2.

steelehc · April 19, 2002, 17:07

I agree with you; aircraft should be able to have much longer ranges. As of now, there is no way to increase the ranges of aircraft beyond 8 spaces.

BTW: The first bomber with a 10,000 mile range was the B-36 Peacemaker, which was first flown in 1946, much more then a decade after the first fighter aircraft.

Steele

planetfall · April 19, 2002, 18:14

Lately it seems like I am the only one asking for increased air range. I want a range of 10-12 for bombers. BUT note with 1.21 you can set range as unlimited. I have not tried it yet, but it should work.

Why didn't I, I don't want the AI's to blind side me with missions from the other side of the world. Get more people to keep on reminding firaxis of the need and eventually we'll get a patch that will fix this problem.

The other air craft item I would love to have is the ability to restrict building bombers and stealth to cities with airports. Why?
1. it makes sense, they can't land in city without a good airport and definitely not more than once in a wheat field.
2. strategic advantage possibility. Stealth mission to destory airport and no more jet interceptors, just regular fighters should equal shorter air wars.

Sarxis · April 19, 2002, 19:24

I liked playing on very huge custom sized maps (250x250), so the bomber ranges make them near useless.

I really don't understand why there is a max range of 8 in the editor at all.

Grrr · April 19, 2002, 19:28

That is a point. Restricting the stealth weapons to cities with airports would be of great help. I usually take a small town on the border of their Civ, and rush buy a couple of them.

steelehc · April 19, 2002, 19:30

Planetfall: Grrr, Anunikoba, Shale, myself, and many others have all been asking for increased air ranges. Whats your point?

Steele

Andrew Cory · April 19, 2002, 19:41

I'll just throw my US$.02 in for increesed ranges...

Grrr · April 19, 2002, 19:42

I suppose anyone who plays on anything over tiny maps should want increased range.

Andrew Cory · April 19, 2002, 19:47

I'll just throw my US$.02 in for increesed ranges...

Thrawn05 · April 19, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by planetfall
Lately it seems like I am the only one asking for increased air range. I want a range of 10-12 for bombers. BUT note with 1.21 you can set range as unlimited. I have not tried it yet, but it should work.

Why didn't I, I don't want the AI's to blind side me with missions from the other side of the world. Get more people to keep on reminding firaxis of the need and eventually we'll get a patch that will fix this problem.

The other air craft item I would love to have is the ability to restrict building bombers and stealth to cities with airports. Why?
1. it makes sense, they can't land in city without a good airport and definitely not more than once in a wheat field.
2. strategic advantage possibility. Stealth mission to destory airport and no more jet interceptors, just regular fighters should equal shorter air wars.

I did the infinate range for the stealth bomber, and it doesn't work for me. I can't go anywhere in it. I think it would be easy if Firaxis just increase the spinner value for the range. Say, instead of unsigned 0 to 8, have an unsigned 0 to 16 or 32. That would help people like me who play large maps.

Grrr · April 19, 2002, 21:11

And myself. I don't use aircraft at all for this reason, and aircraft carriers aren't very fast either.

Also, why have aircraft carriers, and no airbases.

Thrawn05 · April 19, 2002, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
And myself. I don't use aircraft at all for this reason, and aircraft carriers aren't very fast either.

Also, why have aircraft carriers, and no airbases.

I liked using aircraft carriers when the enemy has a "bay", and I send it up and start doing bombing runs far within their land.

I also changed ACs to be built when you learn Advanced flight, it was funny being able to build ACs before researching flight IMHO.

Grrr · April 19, 2002, 21:28

CUSTOM AVATAR POST!!!

I agree with your humble opinion on building Aircraft Carriers before Aircraft.

notyoueither · April 19, 2002, 21:34

Well... tap, tap, tap... Let's see it... Come on Grrr!!

Dienstag · April 19, 2002, 22:56

NO NO NO! You guys have it _all_ wrong!

The max range of 8 makes _perfect_ sense. Because... because...

Geez. I can't think of a single reason. That's a bad sign, isn't it?

notyoueither · April 19, 2002, 23:19

Well Grrr!! is hiding... Imprisoned by his time zone perhaps?

At any rate. Here's my .02c for increased ranges for Air Units... for the umpteenth time... I guess that puts me in for at least a quarter.

Sarxis · April 20, 2002, 00:36

.

codemast01 · April 20, 2002, 01:03

Ranges should be greatly increased and also be proportional to map-size

Grrr · April 20, 2002, 02:48

No. Put to work in the garden by my mother. I have only lost my avatar which I had lined up due to a corrupt disk.

So for the time being I'll raze at you, imprisoned.

Air units do need to have increased movement rates though.

redstar1 · April 20, 2002, 08:03

I think its a question of balance. Perhaps increasing ranges a little may help but a drastic increase in aircraft ranges leads to an unbalancing increase in the power of aircraft. Might even negate the need for any size of land army and a navy as well.

Flanker · April 20, 2002, 10:19

To improve the short range of aircraft I build a few carriers, which I find to be a great help when doing a full scale invasion of a large enemy civ. Then I let my carriers lie outside the coast on sentry duty and let wave after wave of bombers tear down the city defenses, while transports loaded with tanks and marines make beachheads along the coastline. I haven´t actually really thought much about that short aircraft range because of this tactic. However I guess it would be more problematic if you have no water nearby.

Inverse Icarus · April 20, 2002, 12:55

IMHO, stealth bombers should have ICBMesque infinate range.

and what i would do about the regular bombers bombers is i would make it so they can go 15-20 sqares away from a city, but be able to move like Tactical Nukes on the railroads. therefore, you could have a bomber "fly" across your empire without losing any movement points.

and about airbases: i told firaxis to do that before the game came out. before they even gave a release date. i also mentioned canals / naval bases (work like airbases, built on coastal squares, a real use for 1 square isles). but no one listens to me anyway.

:

okes soren voodoo doll::

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 00:05

Ahhh. Grrr!! the friendy bear. Good one.

korn469 · April 21, 2002, 00:10

i can't believe you forgot i was for increased air ranges too!

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 00:18

I didn't forget. You just haven't been around.

korn469 · April 21, 2002, 00:24

i was joking

work has been killing me lately, though i did see the blue angels fly last weekend

Grrr · April 21, 2002, 01:15

Korn469, I thought you'd left, like Yin26.

Grrr · April 21, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahhh. Grrr!! the friendy bear. Good one.

If you're refering to my avatar, that is Dommel (I don't know what his name is in english), he is an obese dog, not a bear.

korn469 · April 21, 2002, 01:37

nope just real life got in the way

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 05:33

That's a dog? OK. It's a dog. I won't argue unnecessarily with one who goes Grrr!!

korn. Well it's good to see ya back after the work detail. Now how do we get Mike to increase the maximum operational ranges? Hmmm....