Idea to balance planes - Airbases

And most people seem to be voting for some solution to balancing air that is not unlimited fuel and range (like in TA).

But there is no such problem on a large map but the unlimited range allow you to attack and harass you opponent. The only way to stop this is with fuel or something like airbases. Limited ammunition would also lesses the effect.

The problem with this poll is there are 3 choices that indicate restricting air units, so the votes are distributed. Together, they are the vast majority. It's just that the first choice is the OP's somewhat weird system of limiting their range directly, and there is a catch-all "something else" option, which I voted for due to my desire to also restrict ammo.

I am arguing that it's correct that you should be able to harass your enemy even on a large map with air. You're given more time to scout an incoming air force. I think it comes down to enforcing a certain playstyle that you're interested in than balancing air. I'm arguing that the playstyle you're interested in enforcing is less rich strategically because of the reduced options.

It is also ridiculous to me that a plane would have such a tiny range. we're talking reducing a planes operational range to only tens of kilometers.... does that seem right to you?!

Zordon for some reason you keep asserting that air units will be useless for what air units presently do if we limit their fuel or ammunition, and have done so repeatedly without basis.

Nobody wants to take away the spirit of using air units to project power quickly, and at long distance. The thing we want to curtail is to restrict air units projecting power anywhere on any map, regardless of distance.

If we limited some plane's operational range to 100 km, then they would play exactly the same on maps which are, say, 20km x 20km or smaller. But this unit would play very differently than it would on maps that are 200km x 200km or bigger, whereas without this limitation they would be incredibly broken.

Secondly, while I agree giving planes very short operational ranges seems odd, we also need to keep in mind that the time scale at issue is very short. The entire game might only last 20 minutes to 2 hours. A real plane can easily stay aloft for that entire time.

What about a high risk system like "your airplanes crash when they run out of fuel"? You know, like in real life. Would obviously need UI to support not wasting aircraft by default.

Wait have you even been reading my posts, or do you just say, **** another zordon post better quickly dismiss that with some :words:

I keep telling you, being able to project power anywhere on the map is what aircraft are for. I think this is a good thing for gameplay. If you can attack anywhere on the map unopposed by your enemy then you should reap the benefit of that. The exact same thing can be said of land units or naval units. I have given numerous examples why I think this. Essentially all you've said is hey limiting ammo and range, that'll make planes good, they won't be able to attack anywhere. Why is this such a good thing? The enemy should be vulnerable anywhere they've left their guard down.

I understand your point- you quite reasonably believe that air units should be high speed, long range, fragile damage dealers meant to find the weaknesses in an opponent's territory and kill outlying assets.

What I fail to see is how limiting their fuel or munitions detracts from this role. And you refuse to give any detail to your claims that having an operational range limit makes them ineffective at doing exactly what you want them to do.

If you have an airbase with planes in it, you can reach out in any direction out to the limit of your planes' operational range. Or, if you don't mind losing the planes, out to double that range (rebase range, no return trip possible).

Not to mention, in the event that is not enough range for you, you can simply build another airfield somewhere within rebase range, and repeat the process. And this will only be a big factor on maps bigger than anything commonly played on 1v1 in SupCom.

So you're saying that because aircraft are powerful (I still don't accept the claim they're overpowered, they're one option of many) late game on large maps they need to be nerfed hard, regardless of the effect this would have on smaller maps or the early game? Relegating an entire theatre of operations to irrelevance for a vast range of styles of game play solely to benefit one very specific style is the antithesis of good game design.

It is not just late game. Early game can be just as problematic on large maps. Limited range (either through fuel or airbases) on small maps would have little to no effect. Limited ammo would depend on the implementation, but it would have less effect the smaller the map.

Air would never be irreverent. It would just be harder to wage an all air campaign effectively, as you would need to setup a staging area (which may just be a flying tanker circling outside the range of SAM sites) somewhere to operate your planes from.

Ok good but my problem with the airbase is that it's a big marker on the map that says, enemy you may relax beyond this radius, and expect attacks within it. It's removing the suprise element.

I have to say though, that as much as I dislike your fuel idea, I find the idea of munitions even worse. The idea of limiting the amount of damage that can be inflicted with my attack to a limited number of shots is begging for micromanagement, something I gather the community is against. If I manage to make an effective attack somewhere that they cannot counter quickly, then I should get to do damage until they can. Should my land units pack up and go home for more ammo if they're achieving some results? This just pushes the risk/reward ratio further into risk for planes.

You are absolutely right about this. However, take a step back from the way planes currently work, which involves flying in circles around the target, and consider how it would work when you have many planes which need to re-arm.

If you find a gap in their defenses, rather than simply leave your ball of planes flying around in that area until they respond, what would happen is you constantly send in aircraft as they come back to base. There would be constant traffic in both directions until the enemy responds with suitable defense.

In another thread I believe you said that limiting their ammunition and greatly increasing their damage would make them more effective at sniping commanders. This is 100% true. Air units would become extremely effective at sniping commanders, if you got a straight shot at that commander with a large enough air wing- say, if there were little air defense, and you had eyes on an enemy commander with enough planes within response range for a strike to kill him. You win if you meet those conditions. I see no problem with that. And I suspect you don't either, except you expect it to take considerably more planes.

The problem with that though, is that you've just increased the area your planes are vulnerable to as well as creating a whopping great line across the map pointing out where one of your bases is. You're also reducing the effectiveness of planes by the distance away they are, thus removing one of their strengths, the ability to project damage away from your base.

They do not have to go back to your main base, they would be better served by a forward staging area, which could be a mobile unit (like an aircraft carrier or flying tanker depending on the implantation)

Why not just put your mobile fuel plane right in with the rest of your planes then. And once that has been accepted, why not eliminate it (and fuel) entirely.

It likely is not as fast, agile, or durable as attack aircraft. Also if it gets destroyed your aircraft will have to go back to your base.

If it's by itself outside their territory, it's more likely to die than if its among your own units.

So assign it some guards

Way to leave out the context. You sure showed that straw man. Here's the stuff I was replying to

Coldboot is specifically stating that he wants to limit ammo on aircraft and otherwise leave them as they are currently. This is a pure nerf which would make the radically less effective. Ironically this would give them exactly one role they would still excel at - late game ACU sniping with strategic bombers. Given that this is exactly the kind of use of aircraft that people have been complaining about it seems like a sub optimal solution for improving the late game. It would also make aircraft dramatically less useful (that's what happens when you nerf something, by definition) for early game and on smaller maps - two scenarios where aircraft are plainly not a problem. So, to repeat:

My points still stand.

And I have played games with limited ammo. Aircraft could still be effective.

WZ2100 did ammo. on aircraft. It worked fairly well.