Rethinking Air Combat

Is balance with other units and viable counters not the problem at hand?

I guess I'm not clear on what the problem with blobs of aircraft is. I get that you don't like micro. It seems to me, though, that all the micro-encouraging problems you've brought up could be solved mainly with better implementation, but also with things like better counters (T3 flak and mobile AA) or intelligent/easy air formations.

I did suggest a kind of AA plasma laser erlier in the thread that would eaisly sweep through flights of aircraft with a large AOE but would have limited range and slow turning speed.

But it didn't really catch on.

But you have to admint that a part of the problem lies in the ability for aircraft to contoniously attack.

Pantsburgh, you seem to not understand what an "airblob" is. Nobody is objecting to the fact that aircraft should be used in groups. Even potentially large groups, when it is tactically advantageous to do so.

The issue is when it becomes viable to stack your entire air force together on a single location. And the fact that this is viable means players can, and do, build giant air forces just for this functionality, due to their high movement speed.

Real-life air forces have so many planes that having a hundred or more planes in one location seems like a "blob." However consider how many planes those air forces have in total, and how spread out they are between many air fields in many different locations. Real life planes are, due to logistical limitations, limited fuel, limited payload, etc., completely infeasible to "blob" with.

So address it with game tools that already exist.

Use negative attributes like being fragile, having limited ammo, self exploding hardware (bombers especially), AI changes, planetary hazards, and simple loss of cost efficiency. If super death balls are a problem, then add super defenses to work against it.

For example, I'm fairly certain a super future jet doesn't like running 50 tons of volcanic ash per second through its intake. They could run blendtec engines and it would still take a toll on the plane's raw speed and efficiency. With that in mind, a volcano generator(I hear nukes work pretty well too) could very well be what you need to cripple an oversized blob and bring on the real hurt. (super weapon solution)

Or you could take a tractor beam, point it directly at the aircraft's nose, and pull it down, just a little bit. Let the engines do the rest. They HATE that. (point defense solution)

The tools to correct this problem exist, and it has nothing to do with the control interface. In the context of SupCom, add viable T3 AA and suddenly air blobs are a liability.

Additionally, you can't compare video games to real life without adjusting for scale. The scale of a video game (even a huge one like PA) is a fraction of a theater of war in real life. A fraction of a theater of war has a vastly reduced number of planes in 1-2 locations, and they do tend to blob up (or did in WW2, when air power was similar in scope to air power in RTS games).

I'd also like to mention that while it's possible to have systems with multiple planets in PA, it's not like those are 1v1 scenarios. A system with 5 planets is going to be 4v4 or more. One player managing significant forces across more than 2-3 planets will be pretty rare I think. It's not going to be that different from a SupCom type game.

I like the idea of having not just AA shoot at ground but ground defences shoot at aircraft.

The precedent is already there. Modern frigates use their main 76mm cannon in conjunction with the phalanx to shoot down missiles and aircraft.

Having certain classes (lighter and faster) of ground defence also be able to engage air would help the AA balance.

I'm still in favour of some ammo or fuel restrictions but at least having increased AA from capable ground defence units would be helpful. The would have to prioritize their own natural targets so they defensive emplacements could still be overwhelmed.

By my black hand, this thread shall RISE!

Anyway, I think that making air units fragile and providing better AA is the best approach. Air units should be fast but fragile, suited to raids and fire support but very vulnerable to proper defenses. And there should definitely be some sort of flak weapons - but there should also be expensive air units that are less vulnerable to those.

Here's how I'd organize air units (and their counters) by tier:

T1:
Scout: Extremely fast, cheap, made from wet tissue paper, no guns.
Interceptor: Fast, inexpensive, fragile, only AA.
Bomber: Slow, fragile, only AG.
Missile Turret: General-purpose defense. Only effective in large numbers.

T2:
Strike Fighter: Fast, tougher than interceptor, excellent AA, can attack ground as well.
Gunship: Very slow (but faster than tanks), only AG, but fairly tough.
Heavy Bomber: Slow, tough, bombs can be easily dodged but do a lot of damage.
Flak Turret: Slow rate of fire, inflicts splash damage, AA only.
Rail Turret: All-around turret, slow rate of fire, does a lot of damage.

All the T2 units would be expensive to build in blob numbers. Each has a role to play. Strike Fighters can rule the skies and raid isolated enemy units, but will lose against anything with decent AA. Gunships are meant to join in major battles, murdering tanks. Heavy Bombers are designed to take out enemy bases, where units will be able to dodge their attacks.

Now, I like necromancy as much as the next guy. But if someone wants to propose a complete system the entire aircraft gameplay, they are entitled to a thread of their own, even if the subject has been discussed before.

I think the concept of having an energy bar for variable use of weapons, as currently used on bombers, should be a key design feature of most types of aircraft. Strike bombers, air to ground missiles, air superiority fighters, etc. all would benefit from the same limitation on their weapons that bombers currently use.

For example, an air superiority fighter might have a full salvo of up to four missiles at once, but if it only uses one its bar still regenerates. A secondary weapon such as a nose cannon that does not consume its ammunition bar would also allow the fighter to be useful even with its primary weapons depleted.