Idea to balance planes - Airbases

This just makes air to air fighters defensive because the most cost effective version is defensive which means the enemy will win when defending with his fighters and therefore against your air to ground force too.
And if the light fighters aren't more cost effective then no one would buy them because they'd be flat out useless

An excellent point.

The Light Fighter would be an easy target for the Heavy Interceptor as the heavy interceptor would stay out of range and use its longer range missiles. Also there would could be Air Superiority Fighters to add to the mix.

So rock meet paper? Doesn't sound very strategic.

Either the big intercepter can kill all the small ones before it goes back or the small ones kill all the other attacking planes for free. It still comes down to the fact that one will always outperform the other.

I guess the light fighter may be a bad idea. The light interceptor as a last ditch anti-bomber unit I think still has merit.

Something has to win, and the more expensive, high tech unit, probably should have some advantage (here it is range of weapons and range of the unit).

My problem isn't that something has to win it's that if the light fighter wins then it becomes impossible for enemy air to attack you and if the big fighter wins then the light fighter has no purpose. Both of these outcomes are undesirable I feel.

The way I would see things going down is the heavy interceptor takes out light fighters then you bring in your bombers and gunships to destroy the base. If the light fighters get the drop on the heavy interceptor (which due to their roles and ranges is unlikely) the light fighters should win (being better dog fighters).

So.
Much.
Theorycrafting.

you can't assume a player will play badly and then balance the game off that assumption.....

I'm not. They could be ways for a light fighter to close the distance such as be launched (such as from a carrier or bomber) close to the heavy interceptors base.

That being said. I do not really care who wins or looses. If the light fighter can not be killed by a more offensive unit, then defense has an advantage. If the heavy interceptor or air superiority fighter wins, then offense has the advantage. If they are equally balanced that is fine with me too. These are all just options to consider and work out. I just chose the Light Fighter, Light Interceptor, and Heavy Interceptor as they are distinctive, useful, and flavorful roles that aircraft have had.

Zordon, unless you have something good to say then don't even bother posting.
Also change your avatar.

Well thats a little harsh. Did you read the whole thread or are you just basing it off one post?

lol, I was wondering how long it would take before an admin said that.

Poor middle finger man, so misunderstood.

I feel like this thread has deteriorated into whose imaginary unit would win in a fight.

The point at issue is whether we should limit air units in some way, be that fuel, ammo, both, or something entirely different. There have been undercurrents of balance discussion that is not directly pertinent, but obviously has an effect on why some people think what they do.

I will restate my position succinctly. The best way to make air combat more interesting is to apply limitations that add interesting decision-making to the most effective use of limited units and resources.

Implementing limited range in the form of fuel causes air units to be localized based on other features, including airfields, carriers, etc. which creates an interesting framework regarding how you distribute your air units around the map. It also imposes an absolute range limit, which is relevant for restricting air units on maps of arbitrarily large sizes, but will have no significant gameplay effect on small maps.

Implementing limited ammunition binds air units more tightly to resupply points, but more importantly it also enables a dramatic overhaul of the way in which aircraft do damage. Instead of doing constant damage per second due to their presence in an area (like land units), air units fly in, unload an extremely high damage payload, and leave the area to resupply. This makes the interplay between air and anti-air more dynamic, makes air units more involved to utilize, potentially with much greater rewards for less investment. And it also makes air units less efficient to use in tremendous numbers in a single concentrated attack, instead encouraging separating them into small groups to deal damage most efficiently.

It also makes air units vastly more effective at ACU sniping. Remember what mercies were like initially? Do you really want to make all aircraft work like that?

Mercies had unlimited fuel and ammo, enabling them to be anywhere, and penetrate behind defense in depth anti-air. And air units were also made incredibly tough because they had to persistently stay in areas where they will be fired upon in order to do damage.

None of that is necessarily true if they have limited fuel and ammo.

However, on the whole, you are absolutely right. This would make air units more effective at killing commanders when a group manages to get a salvo off, due to high burst damage. The thing is, I see no more problem with commanders being killed by air units than by other weapons. If you lack adequate defense for the one asset that you must defend or you lose the game, then you simply lose.

It doesn't necessarily have to be that extreme. Look at helicopters now; they have an MG with (presumably) several hundred rounds and then something to the effect of 15 missiles mounted on launchers. Limited, but enough to serve as a medium duration high damage output combatant.

@Ledarsi: no. They had 10 minutes fuel (large but finite), could not refuel by any means, and died upon firing a (very powerful) shot or running out of fuel. They were basically the extreme version of the ammo system.

Ah yes, you're right, the kamikaze missiles. The real reason those were a problem was their HP, not their damage. They were so reliable there was little risk in constructing a stack and making an attempt on the ACU.

And while SupCom technically had a fuel system, it was essentially irrelevant. Planes had incredible amounts of flight time, and very few resources were required in aircraft support to make them 100% effective. Not to mention that the penalty of running out of fuel was relatively minor, only a serious movespeed penalty, which could quickly be corrected by a fast refuel. SupCom essentially destroyed its own good idea by being too lenient with fuel.