Increase the aircraft range!

zulu9812 · August 17, 2002, 03:38

I know this has been mentioned before. But it's really important, so I'll say it again. That hard-coded range of 8 is useless for scenarios. Let#s take an example. Uberkrux is working on a WW2 Battle of Britain scenario (dunno if he still is, but it's a good example). As you can see from the picture, bombers only just have the range to cross the channel and bomb cities. The range of 8 means that the English Channel can't be in proportion. In fact, it would have been really nice if Uber had been able to make the map larger and really go to town on the detail. But he can't, because of that damned hard-coded air range of 8.

I understand that there's a wish-list for Play The World. Well this should be at the top. WW2 unit graphics: bonus. Japanese Medieval unit graphics: bonus. Workers building airstips and radar towers: bonus. Un-hard-coding air range: a must. A definite must.

Nubclear · August 17, 2002, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
I know this has been mentioned before. But it's really important, so I'll say it again. That hard-coded range of 8 is useless for scenarios. Let#s take an example. Uberkrux is working on a WW2 Battle of Britain scenario (dunno if he still is, but it's a good example). As you can see from the picture, bombers only just have the range to cross the channel and bomb cities. The range of 8 means that the English Channel can't be in proportion. In fact, it would have been really nice if Uber had been able to make the map larger and really go to town on the detail. But he can't, because of that damned hard-coded air range of 8.

I understand that there's a wish-list for Play The World. Well this should be at the top. WW2 unit graphics: bonus. Japanese Medieval unit graphics: bonus. Workers building airstips and radar towers: bonus. Un-hard-coding air range: a must. A definite must.

Actually, I'd rather see them work on putting diplomacy in...I mean, in a WW2 Scen, Britian attacks Germany (and begins going into disorder...), Germany gets US to back it up, Britian brings Japan onto its side, they all make peace, nothing happens, ya hit 2050......

But yeah, this is important too.

/Er, misread your post....I thought it was a WW2 scen. Oh well. Doesn't matter anyway, you get my point, rgiht?
/Double Er, it is a ww2 scen

Coracle · August 17, 2002, 05:04

We asked after Civ 2 came out to have a system where MP's are adjusted automatically by map size. But no, we STILL have a hardcoded '8' maximum range, that Firaxis has obsessed on.

OF COURSE it must be changed, or historical scenarios are rather pointless.

Something else that needs to be changed is the way subs (and privateers) are utilized. This to me is as important as bomber range. Subs still cannot attack enemy merchant shipping on his trade routes. The Germans almost won both World Wars by theiur use of subs - impossible in Civ 3.

BTW, as for bombers, I also expected an improvement in Civ 3 would be special long-range fighters capable of ESCORTING bombers on missions. We don' t have that either.

Coracle · August 17, 2002, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Actually, I'd rather see them work on putting diplomacy in...I mean, in a WW2 Scen, Britian attacks Germany (and begins going into disorder...), Germany gets US to back it up, Britian brings Japan onto its side, they all make peace, nothing happens, ya hit 2050......

But yeah, this is important too.

/Er, misread your post....I thought it was a WW2 scen. Oh well. Doesn't matter anyway, you get my point, rgiht?

It IS a WW II scenario.

And controlling Diplomacy is also a prerequisite for a good historical scenario.

Nubclear · August 17, 2002, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

It IS a WW II scenario.

Bah, its 342.

At least I was right the first time

Quote:

And controlling Diplomacy is also a prerequisite for a good historical scenario.

I agree. No historical scenario can be created without it. Hopefully this will appear in PTW.

zulu9812 · August 17, 2002, 19:32

*bump*

NeoStar · August 17, 2002, 21:53

At the moment the only way you could fix that WW2 situation would be to uncheck 'immobile' so aircraft could manually move and be set to bombard their targets.

Unfortunately there are too many problems with this method - the AI not using them and infinite flight movement two of them.

NeoStar · August 17, 2002, 21:59

BTW - Your poll has 'Very important! Air range of 8 is useless on larger maps!'. You have to remember that increasing the range would make them too powerful in smaller maps.

A sort of percentage thing for movement on tiny - huge maps wouldn't be bad (50% - 150%)

But on the topic - I rank greater range equal first with Civ2 style scenario controls

Inverse Icarus · August 17, 2002, 22:48

a point was made that a "sliding scale" based on map size.

Jon Shafer · August 17, 2002, 23:48

When was 1.29f released? A month ago? Less?

PtW is finished.

As I've said in numerous places already, I don't expect to see increased range, new diplomacy, anything. Expect what they've advertised (new terrain sets, MP, better scenario binding, new civs, a couple new units), and that's all. I'm warning you guys, don't get your hopes up for PtW... they've had a month to add new 'features' aside from what was included in 1.29f.

Coracle · August 18, 2002, 05:41

If THAT is the case I strongly advise Firaxis to ADD WHAT WE WANT AND NEED, and wait another few months before reaping your profits.

I know I won't be buying it until I have read the forums closely. I was burned once with a beta Firaxis product. Not again. But I will at least consider it since that stupid Flipping can bhe turned off.

We will be hard-pressed to do real historical scenarios without better naval warfare, control of Diplomacy, and increased aircraft range. Much of this and other things we've been asking for since the game came out, such as ending the crazy unlimited MP's on RR's.

MarkG · August 18, 2002, 06:30

Quote:

the crazy unlimited MP's on RR's

something that was also a part of civ2, which was "much more close to historic reality" as i recall

btw,

Quote:

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his...

NeoStar · August 18, 2002, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
When was 1.29f released? A month ago? Less?

PtW is finished.

As I've said in numerous places already, I don't expect to see increased range, new diplomacy, anything. Expect what they've advertised (new terrain sets, MP, better scenario binding, new civs, a couple new units), and that's all. I'm warning you guys, don't get your hopes up for PtW... they've had a month to add new 'features' aside from what was included in 1.29f.

True - they'll probably include only what the've advertised - and if it said 'and many more features' we can expect one or two.

Sure they haven't much time between the patch and PTW - but they could have made a few nifty items and be holding out on us just to make people buy the XP

No hopes with me. Just discussion

MrWhereItsAt · August 18, 2002, 07:23

Although I haven't yet played a game to the tech level where aircraft are available (

), I have to agree with the premise of this thread for the sake of scenarions, if nothing else.

NeoStar · August 18, 2002, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Although I haven't yet played a game to the tech level where aircraft are available (

)

No surprise there mate - I usually win/lose before them too. I have yet to use a jet.

If PTW does not give added range (no hope allowed) is there any way to allow the AI to use manual move aircraft? At least it should work in MP...

zulu9812 · August 18, 2002, 09:17

apart from the fact that ground units will be able to attack them

SABRA · August 18, 2002, 09:48

they should increase the range and make sure that it works properly .

NeoStar · August 18, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
apart from the fact that ground units will be able to attack them

Unless you made them ridicously good in defence so no one would dare.

Airbases will go a way to fix this problem (in a WW2 scn) by giving bombers two moves to get across the channel and be able to attack Germany. Where they will be positioned will be the probelm

Inverse Icarus · August 19, 2002, 01:50

it's not just a questions of making it a larger range, it's the concept of ALLOWING US to make it a longer range.

even if it's just for scenarios (ie they wouldnt change the official rules), it would be extremely helpful.

Thrawn05 · August 19, 2002, 15:38

In the editor, allow the Range spinners to be up to 1000 like the attack and defense (this will cover EVERYONE, and it will be VERY unlikely someone would complain it's still too small).

This will affect the airplane range and bombardment ranges. THe bombardment range would be usful for those WW2 modders who want to have that really large german artillary unit (the name escapes me at this time).

Since this is in the editor, it will keep everyone happy. People were complaining about lethal bombardments. Same thing is happening here.

candidgamera · August 19, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
When was 1.29f released? A month ago? Less?

PtW is finished.

As I've said in numerous places already, I don't expect to see increased range, new diplomacy, anything. Expect what they've advertised (new terrain sets, MP, better scenario binding, new civs, a couple new units), and that's all. I'm warning you guys, don't get your hopes up for PtW... they've had a month to add new 'features' aside from what was included in 1.29f.

Can we pin any hope in the fact that one person worked on 1.29 as I understand - as a sidebar, and hopefully more people have worked on PTW?

Variable movement by map size: definitely would be a good thing for the editor.

have been using the work around of giving fighter about 4 moves, bombers 2 - allowing at least some staging. If they stay in one place makes for some nasty air support too.

Jon Shafer · August 19, 2002, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by candidgamera
Can we pin any hope in the fact that one person worked on 1.29 as I understand - as a sidebar, and hopefully more people have worked on PTW?

Well, only 1 person worked on each 'important segment', i.e. AI, editor, etc. For PtW the team is exactly the same except for the extra design and graphic guys, for the new terrain sets, opening animation and units.

So in other words, there's basically the same core team working on the 'meat' of PtW.

Robert Plomp · August 19, 2002, 18:04

Geez, the auto censor censors everything out,
but for some strange reason this thread title is no problem..................

what's wrong with those american people?

Andemagne · August 19, 2002, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
it's not just a questions of making it a larger range, it's the concept of ALLOWING US to make it a longer range.

allow us to increase the range

jpmayer · August 19, 2002, 23:04

Yeah obviously we need some more options on all type of air warfare. But I want to know what program you're using to create that battle of britain scenario...I thought an editor wouldn't be released until PTW comes out. And if one is out, why the hell hasn't anyone made a WWII scenario?

Thanks, Jordan

WarpStorm · August 20, 2002, 12:32

v1.29 has the editor.

Hagbart · August 20, 2002, 16:02

Yeah I can see it is a problem playing large scenarios like WW2, if the range is only 8. You should be able to change that in the editor. Personally I don't care as civ3-scenarios suck, Civ2-scenarios still rule!

snuggs · August 20, 2002, 18:49

I'm the mong that voted 'ambivalent' before actually having read the posts. The idea of making random map ranges proportionate to the size of the map is brilliant and should be applied to ships too. And there's no way maximum range should be hardcoded at any rate. Leave it up to the scenario maker. There really is no argument against this.

Galvatron · August 27, 2002, 07:03

It's definitely necessary to improve the range of the planes as you said on larger maps they are more or less useless and furthermore to control diplomacy so we don't have WWII without the war (e.g. everybody is sitting together and nibbles a cup of tea).

Panag · August 27, 2002, 17:08

hi ,

they should unlock that field and a couple more , ...

the max value for the aircraft range should be 100

have a nice day