New System for Aircraft

I think the biggest problem is that air based defense have poor reaction time. In real life there is an envelope of air which the missile can take out aircraft in. The envelope varies with the speed of the aircraft relative to the launcher. If an aircraft is approaching the launcher the missile can be fired so that it travels to maximum range just as the aircraft gets there (so it launched BEFORE the aircraft was within range). If we do little things like this than we will have less of the problem that no matter what aircraft get to launch their missiles at you. (though there aircraft with standoff munitions like cruise missiles would out range these launcher [but their cruise missiles could be shot down by air defense])

Then maybe they were thinking the same way you were thinking, that gas planets are actually impossible to fly on. This is a new game exploring alot of new territory, why not give this a go? Flying superstructures haven't worked really well in the past when implemented with ground and navy though, especially since this thread is talking about the balance of how the ground and navy can deal with air power.

you should read the rest of my post as well.

Just quoting this because I think it's spectacularly well thought out.

Aircraft are not flying land-units. Don't treat them as such.

I don't disagree with that general sentiment, but in a game this potentially vast, I don't think systems that requires more user input to manage are the answer.

Edit: That said, I am tentatively warming to the idea of limited ammo, but not fuel.

Under two conditions:
1) Reloading is extremely fast, like teleport it in as I fly past, and;
2) Air Factories can reload planes by default, by all means have a separate structure that can do it too, say for fire-bases and large numbers but don't force me to build it to support a modest defensive air-wing patrolling my base.

I think that as the scale of the game increases, it becomes increasingly important that aircraft have limited operational range.

On huge maps, if planes have unlimited fuel and ammo, then aircraft have to be really, really weak to justify their incredible mobility and flexibility. Why would you ever build land units if you can get a flying unit that is anywhere close to comparable in terms of combat power, and which is also many times faster and ignores terrain?

Thank you.

You've been a light of brilliance in these otherwise murky forums.

Coming into this topic late and I'm only replying to the OP... Awesome post ledarsi, you articulated everything I've thought about air units in the past.

It may be a bit of a headache to program 3D pathfinding aka collision avoidance tho...

Ledarsi, I agree with what you're saying here, I've just been using the word "balance" as something you do to both prevent the strict overpowering of particular units, and the relative balance between unit types to make sure the game stays interesting.

It's like mmo's have invaded RTS's. Nerf threads and the game just got funded. Every RTS game ends up with "favored" units, when used well are effective. If you nerf one, another will take prominence. I agree that the issue with Hawks was AA not hitting them in TA, however to make them really effective, you had to micro them around, and poor micro could get them owned by Flakkers.

Really what this sounds like, I hate to put it this way, is someone got rick-rolled by some unit set up, and they think its OP cause they don't want to play that way. What's different about a mass of tank units (Sumo's, The Can, Bulldogs, etc.) from just waltzing into your base with numbers great enough to maul everything? Nothing.

The argument im seeing is that T2 fighters en mass kills anything. Any unit in sufficient mass kills anything. Some just take more then others. If rocket towers or flak cannons had better tracking, you'd see less people complaining about this. Yeah, 60 Hawks in one clump flying into your base is going to ruin stuff, and though I don't think you need to have an equal number of AA to hard counter that, if you've got 5 AA towers and you think your covered for AA, you deserve what is about to happen to you.

Best protection against Air attacks, air factories building Air on a patrol order around your base. Missile towers need an accuracy boost, but nothing well above where they are now. I've always thought TA could have used a T2 missile tower, instead of a flakker as a flakker will only really hit massed hawks lagging behind the main wave and more often then not takes out your own units as well.

The idea sounds great.... BUT its fairly unrealistic... its not very clear for the gamer, very hard to implement, and costs tons of ressources on machines... dont think that it will possible with the current budget.
An Alternative would be fixed heights where aircrafts can fly. Like "Normal" "under radar" "High" "Observing" all with different sideeffects like:
"under radar": slower but invisible for radar, more damage from ground units, less attackable from higher Air Units, cant attack higher air units
"Normal" can attack everything
"High" cant attack ground units but deal more dmg vs aircrafts at "Normal" height
"Observin" cannot attack, can only be attacked by missles

Well,

How about scrapping aircraft as a unit and create it as "ammo" for airfields a la StarCraft 2, hangers in Sins of a Solar Empire or, for those who are purist, a la nukes and anti nukes in TA.

Basically, create airfields or carriers.

Have them store aircraft for sorties or for defense.

Then use the airfields to target enemy installations or areas with bombers. Fighters would be the primary defense and would launch to defend against enemy bombers in range (assumedly large). AA units could still be built.

This would allow people to invest in airfields which would count against a unit cap. Each air structure would support a set number of units. If a unit is destroyed, it'll rebuild at a hit for metal/energy automatically up to the ammo limit of the unit.

Clouds of fighter will clash over battlefields as bombers strive to deliver payloads to designated areas but, the constant micromanaging of trying to control an unwieldy air force on every planet and moon will be ended. That will allow for people to concentrate on the other battlefields raging across the star system.

I really like this idea. We are basically seeing the idea a replacing manned aircraft with far smaller and relativity disposable drones IRL. Replace the air blob-hordes of FA and Supcom 2 with sea and air carriers similar to Protoss Carriers from StarCraft.

Add the option of dedicating them to anti air or anti ground for some more tactical play. Giving them the option of arming the drones with different ammunition and a cool down to prevent instant switching between options.

These massive carriers can slowly make their way to the battle ground and spew forth 10, 20 or even 30 smaller drones to add to the mayhem. When a drone is destroyed the carrier automatically starts to rebuild the missing drone. With an appropriate hit in metal and energy to our economies.

If Uber is thinking of having massive battles on multiple planets and/or moons then we need to start thinking of ways to limit the need for micro and start looking at ways to marco our armies.

This idea can even be applied to ground armies. Rather then building one at a time we build squads of them like in Dawn of War. With the ability to replace destroyed units cheaper at our base rather then building a whole new squad. Say infantry squads of 5 and tank squads of 3.

Limited fuel and ammo makes aircraft interesting? NO WAY! One of the most annoying things in Supcom was that you had to refuel your planes constantly. And it doesn't make any sense at all, they are futuristic planes and just like every other unit types they should have unlimited ammo and fuel aka. own personal power generator that keeps them going forever. And planes are meant to be super fast.

I didn't like fuel, but I do like the idea of ammo as long as thy system was intuitive, well explaned and quite automatic.

Mabey give planes afterburners for getting back to airfields.

Congrats, I think you deserve the 'Ignored the entire thread, posted anyways' award.

And HOW exactly did I ignore the entire thread? Please be more specific. I didn't see people going against the fuel/ammo idea so I posted my opinion. Was that wrong thing to do?