Idea to balance planes - Airbases

Sniping non-ACU targets is way less of an issue than sniping the ACU... But you're right, boosting burst damage does make aircraft more effective at taking out any high value target. I've been focusing on the ACU cause it's the ultimate high value target.

I do not see this as a problem, think of it as reinforcing the default aircraft role as strike unit. There could be exceptions, and depending on the exact implementation. For instance a Strategic Bomber could have 100 small bombs, and the number it releases depends on the strength of it target(s). So if it goes after weak targets it has considerable more ability to loiter.

Assuming the aircraft in question has very high burst damage it will behave more like the mercy than a plane that does not use ammo but how much it acts like a missile depends on the value of the aircraft to the builder. I know that many times I have sent aircraft with unlimited ammo on missions that were suicidal, where they may only get one pass, and that is pretty much the same as the Mercy.

Using your assumptions, would not the interceptor have higher DPS as well meaning it could take out aircraft faster, and there would be less chance that aircraft breach your base at all?

I see this as splitting peas. Destroying your opponents ability to wage war should be an effective strategy. Aircraft due to their mobility are already really good at doing this. Giving them an ammo limit just makes its more resource or time intensive to do so, though the first fusion reactor will probably go down quicker.

Edit: I forgot to mention that using fuel or "air bases" in addition to ammo limits the whole sniping resources issue as you need infrastructure (which could be mobile [i.e. aircraft carrier or flying tanker]) closer to the intended target.

I'll say this again. Why not have air units glide down/crash when they run out of fuel? Combined with appropriate infrastructure costs and the right ammo system balancing and commander snipes take time, space, risk, and resources to set up which any good commander should see coming and stop.

I think crashing may be overdoing it. The aircraft knows how much fuel it has left, it should just land. A refueling unit (maybe the basic engineer if needed) could come by and refuel it. Aircraft should only be destroyed if they are successfully attacked or ordered to self destruct.

Well, limited ammo is a good idea :idea:

A single line necro bump? Hehe, that's not good.

It's pretty amazing how the discussion over air units has evolved since September. Mostly, the bad things about ammo based aircraft are looking like pretty good things right now. Yes, trying to keep fast air in the game is important. Similarly, keeping air units from dominating the game is ALSO important. Limiting their damage output and encouraging trips back to base helps push air towards that goal. Ammo does this in a way that fuel can't, in a way that demands no complicated maintenance. If you attacked or were attacked, you need more ammo. EZPZ. Having munitions regenerate in the field establishes a minimal damage output that keeps air a long distance weapon regardless of planet size.

The energy demand could go either way right now. If pushed hard, then air units will be very restricted and a huge investment for most of the game. If kept light, there is more freedom between choosing air or ground forces. It'll depend heavily on how the energy economy works as well.

There are potential weapon designs that can punish fast units, punish bombers, protect against front loaded damage, or protect against air completely. Each method offers ways of dealing with specific air issues without trampling on other aspects of the game. It may be better to solve air problems with such things, rather than crippling units or shredding them with hueg deeps AA cannons.

Lastly, Commander survival is a Commander issue. Give the Comm what it needs to live, rather than crippling units for doing their role well.

I'm concerned that without requiring some kind of staging or tethering carriers will be relegated to an awkward support role - again. An energy maintenance that spikes in battle is interesting but as bobuncles noted in the storage thread it's more like a soft supply limit. We can also ask ourselves why we want carriers and airbases to have any impact on airplay? My opinion is that it leads to a richer interaction between air and surface forces, even when they're not in direct combat.

My other concern is that air just can't be cost balanced as an all-terrain, stacking, fast class of units - even if it's a maintenance/ammo cost. The Spring refuel/rearm system worked because it side-stepped cost balance by imposing a logistic limit on aircraft. Aircraft will always be your strongest weapon but where and how long your aircraft can be should be a function of ground and sea presence. Requiring ground and sea presence to establish a forward air presence adds another layer of depth and strategy - rooted in reality.

Admittedly, requiring power generators isn't that different from requiring carriers & airbases. The main difference is that energy can be built anywhere and so you cannot directly impact air presence with your local forces by targeting a base or carrier in the area.

Ultimately though this is all conjecture, as Uber could make staging and carriers immediately rearm aircraft - saving you energy and more importantly time. If carriers and bases immediately rearmed your aircraft then destroying an opponent's forward carrier would not only increase their energy demands but limit the player to only engaging in air skirmishes in the area (due to their slower energy-based rearm). Indeed, the system could be richer after all if carriers and airbases are still required for prolonged combat but it would require that the energy-maintenance mechanic limits air to a skirmishing capacity, like Evo-RTS.

Don't like it. That basically turns Air into static defense, like a guard dog on a chain.

Who wants to have to build airbases as close as possible to enemy bases? Not me.

I prefer what was mentioned on the last live-stream, in which Bombers have limited munitions that take time and cost to automatically replace, but can still do so independently away from a dedicated structure(airbase).

Basically the aircraft replaces the munitions internally when resources allow, and a build-time exists.

Or bring a carrier forward? The idea is that air would have a skirmishing capacity outside of staging facilities, e.g. the ammo system described in the livestream. So they have to pull back after a while. But if you have a forward base, or you're fighting at your main base you never have to pull back to recharge. I'm not saying it should be just like reality and you need carriers or bases for any air offensive but being rooted in reality to add some positional strategy which air lacks.

Carriers work on planets with plenty of water, but nowhere else, even then I'd want carriers to simply be a factory/repair/transport rather than a mandatory support.

Unless Uber is implementing a movement-based fuel system, I see no reason to artificially limit air's range of movement. As far as I'm concerned having a system that prevents air from being spammable damage(like the ammo limitations previously mentioned) is good enough.

Air landing ANYWHERE was a really cool concept in TA, it meant you could hide a squadron in an unlikely place(say a canyon) and perform surprise attacks from unpredictable directions.

I agree, their movement does not need to be limited by fuel or tethered to support units.

Except it doesn't prevent air from being "spammable damage". It just imposes an energy upkeep on said damage, like artillery. If the ammo build time is too significant air units will not be able to engage in prolonged battles i.e. limited to skirmishing. If that ammo build time is too fast you will just need more power generators to maintain an air force that can quickly fight on any part of the planet.

My suggestion is that staging in PA functions similarly to Zero-K and NOTA and automatically rearms your plane - saving you energy but more importantly build time. Carriers and staging facilities would function as rapidly assisting build power for your aircraft munitions, this rearmament could be free or take the full energy cost. The main benefit would be the build time you save your airforce by supporting it with staging facilities or carriers. This would add some strategy to getting a carrier near your opponent and establishing a forward base with air staging.

I agree, why wouldn't that be in the game?

Wasn't air generally a very support-balanced thing in TA? I never played Online MP in TA, got there too late in the game, but I remember air units being very hard to mass produce and being very ineffective en masse. The closest I ever came to having an "Air Army" was spamming nothing but ARM Gunships.

I tend to use aircraft as more of a expendable force then most, sending bomber squadrons to strike important targets like nuke defence silos, knowing full well that the entire wing will be decimated.

So mobile factory's (Carriers) are a must in my arsenal, and I mean truly mobile unlike in SupCom where when building units they had to sit still.

Another point to consider is if seaborne aircraft produced by carriers should differ to land borne ones?

Traditionally aircraft landing at airbases can afford to be much larger and heavier then aircraft landing on carriers, so should we have a fer sea variants of aircraft to create cheaper but lighter carrier aircraft?

Of course this difference could be made by having carriers only produce basic aircraft and not ones from advanced factorys, giving the weight advantage to a airbase over a carrier group.

I generally find that aircraft with staying power are the worst, so as my appreciation for the current suggested model for aircraft weapons, which will hopefully follow onto gunships as well, making aircraft a hit and run power rather then a territorial power like a land army.

Also, how would we handle attacks with regards to the ammo situation? Would we be able to que up a single bombing run attack to allow bombers to drop their payload and then follow another command to flee? As it would be annoying to have them circle a target while their bombs refill.

I suppose you 'could' implement a mechanic where planes in proximity to carriers and airfactorys refill their bomb bays faster, but that might cause balance problems with the refill times.

That's a good idea. In Zero-K as soon as an air unit completes its attack or runs out of ammo it returns to the nearest available staging facility/carrier (or queues up at an unavailable one). That can be toggled though.

Aircraft are a hit+run power by simple virtue of being FAST. It is impossible to make a fast, powerful, and cheap unit without it dominating the game. Something has to give, and it's usually the unit's power.

Sea planes. You know you want it. Why fuss over the air space when there's plenty of good ocean to dominate?

I like this idea for a few reasons but i have a better implementation. Have Air factories be a staging point (AKA air strip). you can re-assign planes to any factory, but any factory can only hold say 20 units (to save space, maybe they fly up and out of a hole in the ground that is part of the factory?). all factories have a range and no unit can leave that range. i wouldn't do any sort of fuel or ammo for this, but mybe every so often planes need to land and are repaired in doing so. fighters would automatically scramble to intercept fighters in range.

This would make planes something like an extension of artillary strategies, controlling regions not through shelling but through air superiority. This could also mean we could have more effective air craft since they are limited in range (though still very vulnerable to AA). gunships and vtol like craft would be a exception to staging because i think that would ruin they're usefulness. Also it could be easier to give orders through the parent factory rather than selecting units buzzing around.