Helicopters & Fixed Wing Aircraft

Currently, aircraft in PA will fly to the target location and stop, but in combat they will fly past their targets, or dogfight like planes should. While functional, I think this design for aircraft can be massively improved.

I propose creating two classes of aircraft; fixed wing and rotary wing (e.g. helicopters). The current aircraft in PA should be changed into fully fixed wing planes, unable to stop in midair. And additional flying units should be added which are specifically designed around being slower, but able to stop in midair, and to maneuver in any direction in combat. Whether they literally have rotor blades is irrelevant; the significant mechanic is their movement style.


Fixed Wing Aircraft

Fixed wing craft are very fast, but must always fly forward in order to stay airborne. Planes cannot stop flying forward- in order to loiter in an area, they must loop around in a circle.

Forcing aircraft to always fly forward has many gameplay implications, especially regarding how planes and anti-air interact. A plane that must fly forward exposes itself to anti-air for more time than a plane which can stop and fire. A bomber must fly past its target after dropping its bombs, enabling the defender to place anti-air well behind the front lines and still deter enemy aircraft.

Fixed wing flight also affects air combat. A fighter that must fly forward is vulnerable to enemy aircraft behind it, meaning turn rate is essential in a dogfight to try and get behind the enemy plane. Planes flying towards each other also cannot stop, which means if neither is destroyed they will pass each other. In either case, one or both planes must spend time not shooting.

Aircraft in TA were mostly fixed wing, despite the technical detail that they could stop flying forward before landing. Aircraft like Brawlers, however, would float and strafe in combat, setting them apart from aircraft like Hawks and Phoenixes which would fly past their targets or dogfight.

Aircraft in PA are unusual in that they can stop in midair, but they do not stop in midair to fight, such as a bomber hovering above its target and dropping bombs. I propose that the currently available air units be made fully fixed-wing, and not able to stop in midair. Ideally, planes would return to an airbase or aircraft carrier, perhaps to be caught using a bay, where the planes wait to be sortied and then return afterwards.


Bombers

Because of the speed of fixed wing aircraft, ground attack craft are necessarily alpha-strike oriented. Compared to the slow speed of aircraft, a plane will have little time to fire before it has passed the target. Their movement mechanic makes their presence on the battlefield focused and short-lived, and poorly suited for large-scale destruction at close quarters, unless they are very numerous. Planes are called "air support" because of this transient, high-impact nature that results from their movement.

The fixed wing movement style prompted the invention of the bomber role, which expends its payload of bombs or missiles, and leaves the area. A bomber cannot stop directly above its target and just unload. Bombers in Zero K capture this dynamic by carrying a limited payload which they must return to an air pad to resupply.

Bombers in PA already use an energy-based ammo system which can be used to create the same dynamic by forcing planes to recharge after dropping bombs. The amount of time required should be significant to encourage bombers to leave enemy airspace to recharge instead of waiting for more bombs while being shot at by enemy anti-air.


Rotary Wing Aircraft / Helicopters

Units that behave similarly to helicopters are present in previous games including TA, SupCom, and Zero K, but they are not labeled in TA/SupCom. In Zero K the Gunship Factory contains the game's rotary wing aviation units, even though many of the units are not actually gunships (such as the anti-air Trident).

Whether the in-game unit literally has a rotary wing is irrelevant. The important differences between fixed wing and rotary wing aviation is how they move, not whether their models have rotors. Helicopters can stop flying forward, and can move side to side, and even backwards. However, they are much slower than fixed wing aircraft, and behave mostly like land units that are targeted by anti-air weaponry. They are faster than heavy land units, but much slower than fixed-wing planes, and aren't so speedy that they can be stacked up all at once wherever the player wants.

In battle, helicopters work by skirting the edges of enemy, engaging targets of opportunity and using their mobility. A helicopter can float outside the range of enemy anti-air, or crest a mountain to fire and then retreat. Or it can move to engage an enemy on the move in the open, and it can kite or chase to keep the enemy engaged. As a result, helicopters have very different roles and unit designs from planes. Helicopters, unlike planes, can serve as front line combat units, scouts and skirmishers, as well as air cavalry.

Helicopter-like units, like the Brawler in TA, or like any unit from the Gunship Factory in Zero K, use very different movement mechanics than fixed wing aircraft. And the difference in movement style allows for very different unit roles and designs, as well as different usage in combat.


Gunships

Strictly speaking, a 'gunship' is a role, not a movement mechanic as the word is used in Zero K. The gunship role is a heavily armed ground attack aircraft. Historically, either a plane or a helicopter can be called a gunship. The AC-130 Spectre is a fixed-wing gunship, and the AH-64 Apache is a helicopter gunship.

Gunships rely on their mobility and weapons instead of heavy armor. As a result, gunships behave very differently from units like main battle tanks which rely on their armor in protracted engagements. The helicopter gunship is also a very different role and unit from the fixed wing bomber. They can float above and move with armies of tanks and infantry, serving as enduring scouts, protracted skirmishers in open fields, and even real combat units instead of air support.


Conclusion

The current air units in PA can stop flying forward, but behave in combat like fixed wing aircraft should. So, I propose to make the current planes fully fixed wing, and introduce new helicopter-style air units that are deliberately designed to hover and maneuver in combat.

Um ah64 aka flying tank. Lots of armor sir, capable of withstanding RPG to certain areas. Just saying
that said making future planes unable to stop when necessary, like the obvious vtol they are.... sounds bad for visuals imo

The AH-64 Apache does have armor, but has much lighter armor than any real tank. The fact that it is flying is critical to its design, since most heavy weapons cannot hit it effectively. In order to reliably hit a mobile, flying target, it generally requires either extremely rapid fire, or a guided missile. A tank's front armor is vastly superior to any armor installed on any helicopter, and needs to be because tanks have to be able to survive direct hits from heavy weapons. The same mechanic could be imported into PA- tanks have higher HP than gunships, but gunships are more mobile.

Planes in PA do not necessarily need to be able to stop and wait in the air, although they currently do stop midair when idle.

They stop and land don't they? And I retract my bad for gameplay statement. I was thinking it would create more micro, but I generally patrol my air support outside a base anyways before an assault so ground units can't kill them....

Weeks ago I envisioned the redesign of the T1 Bomber from a sub-copy of the T2 bomber, into a different unit, that could be useful during all phases of a match, and not just until the player switch to T2 Air Factories.

I got inspired by the A-10 Thunderbolt, which has a very powerful Anti-Tank Gatling Gun, and can fire Air to Surface Missiles. Having a similar unit early game may help to counter attack bots or tanks early rushes. It can also enable the player to protect its metal extractors in a more promptly manner. Consequently a player could rely less on stationary defenses and feel less in danger embracing the mobility of its units to hold on its territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

Indeed, I feel that the design of the Gunship in Nausicaa can be source of inspiration as well.

Those air units could go fit roles that at the moment are kinda missed in PA: fast Anti-Tank Air Units. We could get those units with the T1 Air Factory, 'cos even if they're supposed to shot down one Tank or a Turret per passage, they're still very vulnerable to other Air Units. The A-10 may fly at a low altitude, therefore exposing itself to a counterattack from the tanks themselves.

Those units could shot Air to Surface Missiles (or Artillery-shell-alike) while still outside the range of the AA, and abruptly change direction of flight, therefore even if lightly armored, they could survive a little longer if properly managed.

A good analysis by Ledarsi.

One tricky thing is figuring out the difference between a gunship and some kind of fast, jumping ground unit. They would both feature similar goals- hit fast from an unexpected angle and run away. There aren't many ways to mix that role up before it gets repetitive.

I completely agree. The A-10 is an epic aircraft and it would add lots to PA as both an air support unit and mobile airborne defense.

Ummm if I may...... HELL FAWKIN YEA TO A WARTHOG !!! Supremely awesome suggestion!!!

well fighters and aa kill one and ground units the other, but I vote no to lame jumpy ground unit and yes to gunship. Problem solved.

The A-10 is actually a testament to why fixed wing forward flight is such a good mechanic. As well as air resupply to differentiate roles of planes. The A-10 was expressly designed as a close air support (CAS) aircraft, to be staged from airbases that are very close to the battlefield. It is heavily armed and armored (for a plane), and flies slowly so it has a high loiter capability.

For pretty much any other kind of aircraft, slow speed would be a big problem. Fighters and bombers need speed in order to effectively intercept aircraft and to minimize travel time to distant targets. Very expensive supersonic fighters make sense because they need to be able to catch other fast aircraft, or move to quickly intercept distant aircraft even if they are slower.

But being heavy and slow is one of the biggest features of the A-10. It can carry a giant payload, including its enormous GAU-8 Avenger cannon. And a single strafing run with its cannon is devastating, both because of the sheer size and weight of its gun, and because it flies slowly, so it has more time to fire missiles and its giant cannon.

I absolutely agree that close air support is an aircraft role PA should have- and the A-10 is a great starting point.


A jumping ground combat unit isn't really the same thing as a gunship, unless that jumping ground unit is targeted by anti-air, and is capable of spending most/all of its time in the air.

I really don't see the point of this thread tho :/
Just a lot of semantics, an a-10 replica could be as fast as we wanted, it's a GAME

The point of this thread is: Should fixed wing aircraft (fighters, bombers) be able to stop?

Why not? Would them constantly circling over a spot when you're building them help in any way?
When in combat, the LAST thing you want is for your aircraft to land.

Seems silly still, you're going to require in game runways now?? They're all vtol aircraft, not that big of a deal. Unless it has apparently bugged everyone since,oh idk every rts ever.....

A runway is just a lore element, unless I guess for some reason airbases should consume a lot of land space to construct.

The significant difference between fixed wing aircraft and rotary wing/helicopters is that fixed wing aircraft have a very difficult time avoiding anti-air. If you are flying towards an enemy air defense grid, you are certainly going to enter the enemy's air defense. A helicopter doesn't have to do this- it can stop flying forward outside of range. And if the enemy is advancing, you can even kite by flying backwards. This is a significant gameplay distinction.

Using resupply to tether planes to airbases/carriers is a good supplemental idea to complement their fixed wing movement characteristics because the plane flies in, uses its payload, and flies home. Whereas a helicopter stays in the area, more like a bot or a tank.

I think airbases are a good idea, whether they are runways or bays that catch aircraft is just lore. The gameplay component is that planes are flying back and forth between the front lines and the airbase. The airbase could also repair aircraft, and store them so they don't have to be constantly patrolling unless you want them to do so. But those are minor points.

Would Air Units require refueling at some point? Like having to dock at an Air factory for an instant?

I've been advocating the same.

SC:FA used fuel, and I don't think it worked well at all. ZeroHour used Ammo planes had to reload ar an airfield and it had amazing air combat.

Adding ammo as a game mechanic drastically changes how air units handle and creates many more opportunities to make units more distinct. the significance between burst DPS and sustained DPS becomes exaggerated and is a major focus in creating separate roles for aircraft. The A10's slow speed and high armor becomes an asset because it allows it to loiter and engage multiple targets in a single pass while enduring some AA fire becuase it's not running away, while a strike fighter relies on speed to drop a huge burst DPS on a single target and get out safely. Both units have valid roles and excel at different tasks, but without a return to base mechanic they become nearly interchangeble.

Our current bombers use ammo in a per clip basis and use energy to replenish, but because they don't return home it doesn't create the same dynamic. Instead having low energy just means your bombers do less DPS.

Before PA was released, I argued in favor of having fuel limitations that were more serious and more significant to gameplay than the fuel system in SupCom. The problem with the fuel system in SupCom was that planes had way, way too much fuel (10 minutes or more) and the penalty for running out was not that severe (reduced movement speed until refueled). However, now that Uber seems to have decided that fuel is off the table, I think it is a better idea to go ahead with expanding on the "energy" style ammo system that bombers currently use.

It is my understanding that bombers will have a bar that depletes when they fire which recharges gradually. This will limit the number of bombs or other weapons a single plane can use in quick succession, but doesn't require air staging since aircraft will regenerate slowly on their own.

I hope that air staging is just not implemented yet, but will be implemented later to enable aircraft to resupply much more quickly than by waiting without air staging. Limiting the payloads of planes, and making them more effective with air resupply, is good enough to make land strategically important for them, and avoids some difficult problems regarding limiting aircraft's operational ranges. Zero K limits planes' payloads, and requires air staging in order to reload your planes, and it works very well.

Even if PA does not require air staging, by allowing planes to regenerate slowly, I hope the regeneration without air staging is sufficiently slow that having nearby air staging is a large benefit. Planes without air staging should probably not be very good, or the swarm of aircraft needed to just pick the entire countryside clean is still possible, it just requires more planes because of reduced effective DPS per plane.

Mods might do a fuel system, but as of right now it seems PA will not.

neutrino had replied to one of my questions on the topic. It looks like the plan is to support all the modding needs to enable air resupply, but will not be directly implemented. I still hope they change their mind and integrate it directly, but I can work with strong mod support.

If the aircraft actually retreated to friendly airspace while rearming I wouldn't be against a simple energy based wait timer, but I am still a strong advocate for a strict Rearm/Refuel/Repair system.

I'm a paid programmer at work, and I've done some very large mods for ZeroHour and DawnOfWar, so I'm not scared of a little code. It's my mission in life to make this happen as soon as we have full mod support.

neutrino's post on the topic:

Too bad. It would have been interesting to be able to support your Air Force with logistic and support units, like air fuel-tanks, advanced landing sites and strategically placed air factories to shorten up refueling times.

It's not a bad deal, waiting for a mod just means we'll have to wait a few extra months for it to happen.