What about the stealth fighter?

Cookie Monster · July 12, 2002, 14:30

Has anyone used the stealth fighter to any effect? What are some of the strategies you use them for?

Their ability to bomb only marginally more effective than jet fighters coupled with the low chance of being intercepted must be useful somehow. Since they can't intercept, which is probably realistic, they can't be used as super air defence platforms.

Solver · July 12, 2002, 14:58

But what is good about them? Stealth Bomber can bomb much better, and also has a nice chance of surviving. IMHO, Stealth Fighter has no use.

Jawa Jocky · July 12, 2002, 15:02

I've never built one and I've never seen the AI build one. They're just long range artillery.

Does the guided bomb actually work? I've never tried that either.

Personally I like to use stacks of ground units to speed thing along, so I really can't imagine why a redundant unit that requires more human intervention would be usefull.

Solver · July 12, 2002, 15:09

Nah... artillery and airforce can be useful, but not the Stealth Fighter.

Jawa Jocky · July 12, 2002, 15:14

I hate complain in the stategy section, but this is another example of the Modern Era's defiency. This era is full of problems. Useless units, an uncreative tech tree, and the games usually abrupt ending. I was upset to learn that it wouldn't be fixed with PTW. Oh well, its a great game and I still love playing it.

Solver · July 12, 2002, 15:17

I agree. Modern Era needs a huge remake, hope they fix it. Sure, it needs a remake, and if Firaxis won't fix, we will be able to (improved Editor).

Jawa Jocky · July 12, 2002, 15:32

The player1 mod had some good changes.

He made the stealth fighter an interceptor (really the only bad change he made IMO). But harder to build SS parts and different tech order were a plus. I'm looking forward to the improved editor too. It would be nice to see everyone agree on one mod as the offical version. I have memory issues when it comes to playing all these different mods. My CRS keeps me playing the officially released version.

Cookie Monster · July 12, 2002, 15:46

Agreed, stealth bomber is much more effective in the bomber role than the stealth fighter is.

Still, I'm trying to keep an open mind, Firaxis put that unit in there for a reason. I hope the stealth fighter wasn't just put in the game just for fun. I remember the stealth fighter in the CtP series as being a very useful plane. Was Firaxis merely trying to fluff up it's own game, or does the stealth fighter have a usefullness.

That's the question I guess.

Catt · July 12, 2002, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Was Firaxis merely trying to fluff up it's own game, or does the stealth fighter have a usefullness.

That's the question I guess.

Can't speak for the designers, obviously, but I always believed that the stealth fighter was simply a cheaper (120 shields vs. 240 shields) stealth bomber, with correspondingly (not exactly pro rata, of course) less firepower. Not unlike the destroyer / battleship duo (although those come one tech advance apart).

Catt

EDIT: To be clear, I think its usefulness is that it is simply a cheaper unit -- if the player feels he/she needs bombers quickly (and worries about AI jets on AS missions), then those fringe cities churning out 70 shields each can build a stealth fighter in 2 turns, or a stealh bomber in 4 turns. The presence of the SF in the build list allows the player a (small) tactical choice.

Another EDIT: I have captured a few AI SF's but don't think I've built more than one or two in my entire Civ 3 experience.

The_Hawk · July 12, 2002, 17:08

I agree with everyone. The Stealth Fighter just does not make any sense, especially coupled with being available at the same time as the Stealth Bomber. The Stealth Bomber has longer range, bombs better and even looks cooler!

To me, I could see the Stealth Fighter being more useful if it were an upgrade to the Jet Fighter. Its Stealth capability might give it a higher rate of interception during Air Superiority campaigns against other Stealth planes and especially against Bombers. However, Stealth Fighters can't even run Air Superiority missions. they just suck all together and I never build them. I tend to exclusively build Stealth Bombers for offensive strikes (especially cool when they can do precision strikes) and Jet Fighters for defensive purposes (Air Superiority). If I build Bombers at all I use them on coastlines as long-range artillery.

Jezz · July 13, 2002, 15:03

I always build them. The price difference is a big deal if you're neck deep in fending off 7 civs coming at you from everywhich where. In the time i build one SB, i can build 2 SF, and send them off on different fronts. With the way Civ3's bombing missions work, the more times you attempt bombing, the better chance you have of hitting. Or atleast it seems that way to me.

Franses · July 13, 2002, 17:09

I am surprised that so many of you have experience with these units. I never had the chance building any of them, no matter what level I play. Now, I must admit I do not play out the game if it is obvious I am going to win. It gets so boring after that.
I hope to use these units against human players with PTW so this thread was very learnfull. Thanks.

Cypselus · July 13, 2002, 19:48

Never used one. I don't think I built one in CtP, either, but in CivII, they were exceptionally useful, probably the next best unit after howitzers. But for some reason in Civ3 they based them on the F117 rather than the F22 that inspired the CivII plane. A rather unfortunate place for the designers to become slaves to realism, I think. What were they thinking?

Solver · July 14, 2002, 12:02

Price isn't that much of a difference. Rate of failure for the SF is so much higher than for Stealth Bombers, you better have 10 Stealth Bombers rather than 14 SFs.

Zanzin · July 15, 2002, 08:58

Agreed, it seems pretty useless. By that stage of the game, my cities are so productive that if takes 3 turns to build a SB, over 2 turns for SF...well, there's just so little difference, you've gota go with the SB each time.

Why'd Firaxis put it in there? I guess they thought they were obliged to or something..."gotta have a stealth fighter, right guys?" Pity it's bombardment stength is on par with that of a catapult!! (okay, it's got a 2 ROF...but that doesn't count for anything if it's never going to hit anything because it's so weak in the first place!)

Gen.Dragolen · July 15, 2002, 14:04

Since I've been tinkering with the editor a bit, here's a suggestion: take away the precision bombing option from the SB and only have the SF using it. This reflects the way it actually is used in combat, and it would make it almost useful.

The precision bombing option was supposed to allow you to pick a building to damage in the target city instead of shooting blind.

And including an ATF design like the F-22 would have been nice too. And having it able to hunt a SF would have been a nice equalizer for PTW: you just know your buddy is going to use them and be really obnoxious, but I have yet to see the AI Civ's ever produce anything better than fighters and bombers. And since SAM batteries hit at best 50% of the time, it would be nice to have something with which to chase them down.

Afterall, the Serbian AAA gunners only had to look for the vapour trail, and since it only flies at about 500 mph at low levels, so it's almost an easy target if it wasn't for flying night missions only...

D.

Cookie Monster · July 15, 2002, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
Since I've been tinkering with the editor a bit, here's a suggestion: take away the precision bombing option from the SB and only have the SF using it. This reflects the way it actually is used in combat, and it would make it almost useful.

"Yes this is the way it should be. Will Firaxis correct this mistake? Probably not."

And including an ATF design like the F-22 would have been nice too. And having it able to hunt a SF would have been a nice equalizer for PTW: you just know your buddy is going to use them and be really obnoxious, but I have yet to see the AI Civ's ever produce anything better than fighters and bombers. And since SAM batteries hit at best 50% of the time, it would be nice to have something with which to chase them down.

"Mass produce jet fighters and stack them in a city. You will see a dramatic increase in intercepting SB & SF."

D.

Saint Marcus · July 16, 2002, 18:39

In real life, the Stealth fighter is loads cheaper than the Stealth Bomber. In fact, you can buy about 10-20 F-117s (or F-22s) for the price of one B-2.

Jaybe · July 16, 2002, 23:35

I changed the Stealth Fighter bombardment to 8 (RoF remained at 2).

Barchan · July 17, 2002, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
Since I've been tinkering with the editor a bit, here's a suggestion: take away the precision bombing option from the SB and only have the SF using it. This reflects the way it actually is used in combat, and it would make it almost useful.

True, this would make the SF more useful in the game, but IRL the B-2 is several times more effective than the F-117 in precision bombing. The B-2 can drop up to eight GPS-guided bombs at once, at eight different targets several miles apart from each other, and have them land within yards of their targets. The 117 cannot.

Sadly, if you're an airpower aficionado, you've been shortchanged in CivIII. Piston-powered fighters are rarely ever built due to jets frequently being the next advance researched (or handed to you if you're scientific). Jet-powered bombers, OTOH, are conspicuously absent until the SB shows up. The SF, since it shows up with the SB, is rendered immediately obsolete. There are neither offensive nor defensive counter-air (escort) capabilities, which leaves your bombers completely exposed to enemy interceptors, and you're more likely to launch a colonization spaceship to Alpha Centauri than ever be able to precision bomb.

But then again, CivIII isn't an airpower sim, so who's to complain? Still, there's something wholly unsatisfying about getting the SF and SB at the same time. It'd be like getting cannon and artillery from the same advance. Who'd ever build cannons?

WarpStorm · July 17, 2002, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Barchan
Piston-powered fighters are rarely ever built due to jets frequently being the next advance researched (or handed to you if you're scientific).

But in RL, they appeared about that fast too.

Gen.Dragolen · July 17, 2002, 11:29

After having played a fair amount in the modern age, I've concluded that alot of the air units were an after thought, and that even for the programmers like Soren, the games were pretty much over by 1900, long before you can build stealth units.

The lack of a jet bomber like a B-52 or Soviet "Backfire" other such craft shows me that they thought if no one played for long at that level, the units wouldn't be missed. Even in CtP2, you had a nice selection of units to choose from at all ages. I'm hoping that in future improvements to the editor, we will be able to create new units and improvments

A jet bomber would be one, an advanced tactical fighter, and buildings like public schools, airbases, etc... could be easily constructed. If the graphics aren't available right now, they are simple enough to create in Photoshop or GIMP.

The only problem is trying to get the AI Civ's to build and use these units. Imagine an assault by SF's on half of your cities, and they take out barracks, cathedrals, etc... leaving the populations in revolt ? By default there is only a 5% chance to even detect the units and then a 50% chance to intercept, or 75% chance if you built a SAM battery. Now that would be an interesting war...

D.

Cookie Monster · July 17, 2002, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
After having played a fair amount in the modern age, I've concluded that alot of the air units were an after thought, and that even for the programmers like Soren, the games were pretty much over by 1900, long before you can build stealth units.

The lack of a jet bomber like a B-52 or Soviet "Backfire" other such craft shows me that they thought if no one played for long at that level, the units wouldn't be missed. Even in CtP2, you had a nice selection of units to choose from at all ages. I'm hoping that in future improvements to the editor, we will be able to create new units and improvments
D.

Excellent thoughts Gen.Dragolen

I loved the fact that in CtP2 you had all kinds of juicy modern units that you actually could use.

It is a shame that in Civ3 games are usually long over before you get to use any of the later units. I have yet to play a game where I have discovered the tech for radar artillery for example.

The_Hawk · July 17, 2002, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
It is a shame that in Civ3 games are usually long over before you get to use any of the later units. I have yet to play a game where I have discovered the tech for radar artillery for example.

Ifeel for you Haupt. Radar Artillery rock! I've seen one take an enemy Elite Battleship from full health to red with one blast!

Gen.Dragolen,

I agree with your assessment. I personally love the modern wars better. Full air, naval and ground assauts with a touch of nuclear warfare is what keeps me missing sleep the most! It would be nice if there were more modern units in the modern era...

Perhaps we could start an organized effort to fix it if Firaxis doesn't. Maybe we could get the Mod guys to collaborate on this? I saw some new units in PTW, but we could take it further...

Chemical Ollie · July 17, 2002, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Hawk

...

I tend to exclusively build Stealth Bombers for offensive strikes (especially cool when they can do precision strikes) and Jet Fighters for defensive purposes (Air Superiority). If I build Bombers at all I use them on coastlines as long-range artillery.

What's so cool about precision strikes? If you bombard a city you want to do things in this priority:
1) Weaken defending units
2) Kill population to decrease defence bonus and lessen the chance of culture flipping after capture
3) Destroying improvements is only on the list if you want to annoy the enemy, but most of the times you want to kill him and thus capture the city with as many intact improvements as possible, alternatively raze it, which destoys all improvements anyway.

But pricision strikes (the few times the succed) do things in the opposite direction! First they destroy all improvemnets that you would like to keep, THEN they weaken the defenders, and they NEVER kill any population ever. And you are not even allowed to choose which improvement to destroy. Pretty useless feature in my opinion.

But if I get to the modern era, I build a lot of stealth bombers and use them as artillery, as they have long range and are almost immune against jet fighters. They could also be useful in combination with plenty of paratroopers to grab cities on nearby continents (a strategy I have never tried in a game of my own).

Jezz · July 18, 2002, 00:08

I always fight in the modern age. I usually kill off one or two civs, but leave my biggest competitor alone until modern age. Rolling armies of M1A's across an enemy's homeland is fun.

Precision bombing is very important if you just want to knock down the barracks without killing citizens. Its not something you'll use very often, but everyonce in a while it comes in handy.

Barchan · July 18, 2002, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
But in RL, they appeared about that fast too.

Sort of. It took over thirty years for jets to operationally replace piston fighter aircraft. I'm just saying it'd be nice if there were more than six game turns (on average) before piston fighters are made obsolete. Sure, you can drag the replacement period out if you go for flight first and rocketry last. But given the importance of tanks and cruise missiles, it seems as though it's usually the other way around.

Gen.Dragolen · July 18, 2002, 11:28

Olaf,

Considering the defensive bonuses a unit has hiding in a city, my main goal has always been to draw the units out to fight where I want them.

I have tried bombing cities into ruins, but it has never worked as well as I liked. Bombers and Stealth Bombers lacked the punch of a Battleship, when I know full well what destruction a flight of B-17's could cause, let alone what a B2 with a full payload of CBM's can do. Just look at what F-16's did with CBM's to the Iraqis in the Gulf War.

With the help of some other fanatics, I have been working on creating mods that have a better balance of unit strengths and capabilities which are a little more accurate than what the programmers at Firaxis came up with. Having a Bomber with a weaker attack than a battleship is just a little off. They should be capable of similar levels of damage. And more modern bombers like a B-52 (a 50+year old design now) could carry as much payload as 8-10 B-17's. Vietnamn is going to be busy until 2072 just filling in all the holes...

Take a look at the mod Player1 has posted. He has made an excellent start to redressing the imbalances for some of the air units. Though it will be interesting to see what options have been made available with the new patch they are releasing tomorrow. Many of our concerns may have already been addressed.

D.

Chemical Ollie · July 18, 2002, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
Olaf,

Considering the defensive bonuses a unit has hiding in a city, my main goal has always been to draw the units out to fight where I want them.

I have tried bombing cities into ruins...
D.

How do you get them out from the city to fight in the open? OK, you could put an unprotected worker as a pawn on their border, but how do you know that they will use strong defenders to come and grab it? I have seen them use longbowmen for that, while the mech. infantry stayed in the cities.

And about playing mods: I stick to the game as it came out of the box, plus the latest official patches. How can we discuss a strategy if we don't talk about the same game? It gets to confusing and takes too much time from real life to explore all mods instead of playing the official game. I agree that bomber and stealt bombers should be stronger, though. Let's hope for next patch...

Lawrence of Arabia · July 18, 2002, 18:11

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

What's so cool about precision strikes? If you bombard a city you want to do things in this priority:
1) Weaken defending units

Quote:

But if I get to the modern era, I build a lot of stealth bombers and use them as artillery, as they have long range and are almost immune against jet fighters. They could also be useful in combination with plenty of paratroopers to grab cities on nearby continents (a strategy I have never tried in a game of my own).

I also use this strat. Build up Choppers and Paras and Marines, then send them in behind a wave of SB which pulverizes all infrastructure and city defenders.