Air system conceptualization

[Cassini]

A change to the concept of air units and their basing is needed in order to fully recognize their potential in the game. Too much is being focused upon their basing (as being an asset constructed by the player), and not enough upon their field utilization. (The ‘asset’ should only enable CONSTRUCTION of aircraft, NOT their basing requirements, that should be handled separately).

Air units – given the scale being utilized, which is strategic (with operational level resolution) – should be envisioned/conceptualized as a form of ranged artillery, that needs some additional consideration in order to ‘take to the field’.

In games at tactical/operational scale, artillery has a ‘ranged’ effect. At say a scale of 7.5 km per hex, artillery smaller than 105mm would have a 1 hex range (adjacent hex), artillery at around 155mm would have a 2 hex range (105mm howitzers would have a 1 hex range at this scale, 105mm GUNS would have a 2 hex range at this scale), and the truly long-range stuff (155mm guns as opposed to howitzers) and other large caliber, high velocity guns (say the old US 175 mm gun) would have a 3 hex range.

Aircraft at the strategic/operational scale that is being utilized here would/should take to the field with this line of thinking. The ‘counter’ would consist of the aircraft themselves and a ground echelon along with transportation assets – attaching some of those trucks present in the game. The ground defensive personnel would have a defensive capability only (they’re NOT going into offensive ground operations – they’re in the ‘rear’ of the very large game hex, defending the airfield and aircraft. For the ground defensive personnel, think along the lines of RAF regiment for the Brits or Security Forces for US.

The physical ‘airfield’ would merely be a construction much like roads or railroads (within the game), which would be done at a price in IPs (NO Asset construction). The ‘construction’ would merely show as an airbase in the hex – it would be the ‘real estate’ of an airbase and the bare minimal personnel to maintain it (a subscale consideration, no actual ‘game’ personnel assigned, it would become an asset at that point if personnel were ‘assigned’). The cost of construction would merely be the square of the airbase level (Level 1 – 1 IP, Level 2 – 4 IP, Level 3 – 9 IP, Level 4 - 16 IP, Level 5 – 25 IP). Given the 'benchmark' for road construction (about 40 IP for a dirt road across a hex), the above figures for airfield construction are appropriate considering the hex scale.

So, a 30 aircraft recon squadron (counter) would consist of 3 recon aircraft (30 aircraft), 300 maintenance personnel (30 single engine aircraft, so 300 maintainers – I don’t know if the ‘purchase price’ for the larger aircraft is scaled up in terms of personnel yet – the 300 personnel is already being shown in the game for this unit), 1 defensive personnel (100 ground combat forces) and 4 ‘trucks’ to provide ground mobility for the ground echelon – this (the trucks and their integral personnel) would also account for all the other personnel associated with supporting the operations of that 30 aircraft ‘ultralight’ squadron. Other elements could be added to this counter, like an AA element – so 1 50mm AA gun (10 guns) could be added along with an additional truck. This air recon squadron (with attached ground defense and AA) would have 30 aircraft and 1000 actual people (maintenance – which is already shown as 300 personnel, 1 ground defense – 100 personnel, 1 AA gun – 100 personnel, and 5 ‘trucks’ – 500 personnel). Passes the smell test in order to support 30 aircraft in VERY austere conditions.

I haven’t gone so far as to construct a Level 2 airbase (at about round 60 In my current game) – just because the construction cost is so damn high to enable aircraft with short ranges to be placed into useful range of where the fighting is going on. I have the designs for 4 engine aircraft, but their range is so short and their cost is so high, that they just aren’t worth it (given the current mechanics).

The player utilizing an air force would construct a ‘chain’ of bases (using IPs) to enable the basing (and rebasing) of the game air unit. Rebasing would be a function of range of the aircraft and speed of the ground echelon within the unit. So, game aircraft with a combat range of 3 hexes (operational range) with attached ground echelon, would be able to move across the map (rebasing) as long as there was a chain of airfields no more than three times its combat range – so 9 hexes in this case (ferry range is usually 3-4 times operational combat radius). Presuming the ‘trucks’ can move this 9 hex range (utilizing dirt or sealed roads) the rebasing would be ‘permitted’. If the aircraft had an operational range of only 1 hex, then a chain of airfields no more than 3 hexes distant from each other would be required for ‘movement’ of the air UNIT. The counter would be moved from airfield to airfield – with each being no more than 3 times the operational range of the aircraft in the unit. The unit (with aircraft in it that possesses a 1 hex operational range) COULDN’T move UNLESS it was moving to an airfield within 3 hexes of its current position. The unit would be permitted to continue moving (playing this ‘game’ of hopscotch), until the ‘trucks’ in the unit reached the limit of their maximum movement allowance. For rebasing, the aircraft would have the limitation of distance between airfields, the trucks would have the limitation of their maximum movement capability (action points) in a single game round (turn). In addition, newly constructed airfields WOULD BE permitted to be used for this (to ease the burden on both the player and computer AI in the use of air forces).

The ‘icon’ for airfield level could be placed much like the icon for radioactivity level in a hex, so to not be completely hidden by counters present in the hex (and not clutter the hex center occupied by assets, roads, etc.).

In a situation where strategic movement of the counter is being done, as long as a ‘chain’ of ground bases (airfields) exist (of the minimum appropriate size for the aircraft in the unit) that is separated by no more than the ferry range of the aircraft WHICH IS ALONG THE ROUTE OF TRAVEL OF THE COUNTER, then the aircraft would ‘fly’ as part of the move to catch up with the ground echelon portion of the counter (the non-aircraft portion of the counter would use game strategic resources to move, the aircraft wouldn’t). So, it would make sense to build airfields at intervals of 9 hexes along the major sealed roads – to make sure units containing aircraft with at least 3 hex operational range could strategically move along those routes (aircraft with a 2 hex operational range would require airbase separation of no more than 6 hexes). The same logic would go for rail lines (chain of airfields along the line). In the case of ‘ultralight’ aircraft and helicopters, this requirement to have a chain of bases should be lifted – the ultralight being moved as freight and not as operable machines...

More on interception mechanics later…

[zgrssd]

At say a scale of 7.5 km per hex

Hex sizes are ~200 km on the short diagonal. So you are off by two orders of magnitude.

[Cassini]

I was giving an example that readers could relate to - I know damn well what the game scale is.

Instead of trying to 'shoot down' posters with non sequitur responses (as you very commonly do), you may want to re-read what someone has written, BEFORE you take to the keyboard.

In games at tactical/operational scale, artillery has a ‘ranged’ effect. At say a scale of 7.5 km per hex, artillery smaller than 105mm would have a 1 hex range (adjacent hex), artillery at around 155mm would have a 2 hex range (105mm howitzers would have a 1 hex range at this scale, 105mm GUNS would have a 2 hex range at this scale), and the truly long-range stuff (155mm guns as opposed to howitzers) and other large caliber, high velocity guns (say the old US 175 mm gun) would have a 3 hex range.

It is VERY clear that I wasn't writing in regards to THIS game in that paragraph, I was writing in regard to OTHER games and their scale and mechanics to implement scale issues.

[Voker57]

Even the modern aircraft seem to have much more operational range than 600km (3 hex) so I don't see why aircraft should be restricted that way. The proposed scheme also seems rather complex and much like artillery. How about just removing the completely artificial restrictions on aircraft level (and rail/truck level while we're at it) based on total city population? And nerf thopters.

[Clux]

ORIGINAL: Voker57

Even the modern aircraft seem to have much more operational range than 600km (3 hex) so I don't see why aircraft should be restricted that way. The proposed scheme also seems rather complex and much like artillery. How about just removing the completely artificial restrictions on aircraft level (and rail/truck level while we're at it) based on total city population? And nerf thopters.

I agree, the main issue with air bases its the time than they take to set up, the admin strain than they generate, the massive amount of ammo than aircraft uses and thopters being the best air unit all around (they should only be good as transports, recon or CAS)

[Elver]

ORIGINAL: Cassini

I haven’t gone so far as to construct a Level 2 airbase (at about round 60 In my current game) – just because the construction cost is so damn high to enable aircraft with short ranges to be placed into useful range of where the fighting is going on. I have the designs for 4 engine aircraft, but their range is so short and their cost is so high, that they just aren’t worth it (given the current mechanics).

This varies wildly by planet. There are planets where your starting propeller recon/fighter craft can fly in the 9-12 hex range, and by the time you're looking at turbojet, 25 or 33 hexes are common. The practicality of aircraft will depend on the gravity and atmosphere - there are games where they're extremely useful, and others where they're useless until you've done a lot of research.

The basic issue I have with what you're proposing is that while it's viable and scales better for build times than the current model, it makes aircraft very difficult to rapidly redeploy, which is one of their major strengths in practice. The support personnel are currently being attached to the asset rather than the unit, so the aircraft can switch bases w/o needing to move more than the aircraft. There's an argument to be made for that, as well as against that.

I'd be inclined to argue that if we're changing the current model (which I think works reasonably well, but has room for improvement) we'd be better off decoupling aircraft support assets from aircraft landing assets. Reduce airstrips to, say, 3 possible levels with the first being very easy to build but the others not being prohibitive. The more involved portion asset would be the airbase, where upgrades provide the ability to support more aircraft. A good airfield with a minimal airbase could support a small amount of large craft or a moderate amount of small craft.

Thopters DO need nerfed, though. They make everything else obsolete even if they're expensive to build, and they don't seem to really care all that much about atmosphere compared to either fixed-wing or rotary aviation. They also make the more-advanced VTOL tech seem useless.

[Pankatron]

Lol, I don't even bother with air forces. By the time you set up a high level air base on the front line for heavy bombers, the front line would already have advanced beyond its operational range. Forget setting one up when you're the one being pushed back. At best, it can be used defensively and to help break a stalemate, but those resources, research points and time is better used deploying a tank brigade and upgrading your industry instead.

The AI doesn't even use them, it just spams out flak cannons making sure any aircraft you have is useless eitherway. Air forces, as it is now, doesn't fit the gameplay at all.