We've been looking at some balancing issues again and have a new issue. The problem I keep seeing is that I'll have an airforce of 2-3 fighters and 10-12 interceptors but when I send out the entire pack to take out a target or two, the entire pack moves from mid air to close air and starts attacking. While many interceptors have a reasonable air to ground attack, their defense against ground is never as good as an equivalent fighter. I usually find that my interceptors are taking heavy dmg.
I believe that interceptors on a move order should not move to close air and start attacking ground targets.
We have a few options here. There is a setting inside the unit’s advanced orders to tell the unit "no targets of opportunity" but this would stop the interceptors from attacking other air. We could have a right click order "air defense" that would tell the interceptors not to engage ground targets but if you send the entire pack that would put the fighters on air defense as well. Perhaps the what the “opportunity fire†does needs to be adjusted?…
My current suggestion is as follows; (Opportunity fire defaults to “attackâ€)
1. left click destination, set to "no targets of opportunity" the pack would move to the destination. If they pass units along the way, none of the planes will move to engage. (This completes the move order). Once there, under unit initiative, the fighters would engage air or ground as needed, the interceptors would engage only air (stay at mid air).
2. left click destination, set to "attack targets of opportunity" the pack would move to the destination. Fighters in the group would fire on any land or air targets they see in range; Interceptors would only engage air units during the move command. Once at the destination, both fighters and interceptors would engage any units, land or air, within range.
3. right click destination, order attack, set to "no targets of opportunity" the pack would move to the destination. If they pass units along the way, none of the planes will move to engage. Once at the destination, both fighters and interceptors would engage any units, land or air, within range.
4. right click destination, order attack, "attack targets of opportunity" would be the same as #2
This is my first suggestion. One thing I feel needs to be determined is what should interceptors do “by defaultâ€. I know that people have suggested a right click order to have the interceptors not attack ground targets but this seems quite backwards to me. An interceptor’s primary roll is air defense and should not be getting bogged down with land attacks. I feel that there should be no “additional clicks†to make a unit do what it’s designed to do. The additional clicks should be for the non-standard actions.
Any suggestions and comments are welcome on this as we ourselves can’t really agree on which way is best.
Interceptor plane issues
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
I could be wrong, but i always thought that "targets of opportunity" were only supposed to be attacked AFTER the primary mission was completed (or scrubbed).
The problem I see is that "targets of opportunity" by the games terms will include interceptors(B-enemy forces) that might attack the aircraft the interceptors in group A(friednly forces) are supposed to protect.
In my mind there needs to be a way to tell the interceptors in group A to attack enemy air assets (targets of opportunity of the air nature,BUT NOT GROUND) that could be a threat to the friendlys they are supposed to protect while making sure the friendlys they are protecting dont attack "targets of opportunity"(of any nature) until they have completed the mission assigned to them.
Unless ive misread your choices ,none of them allow this.
The problem I see is that "targets of opportunity" by the games terms will include interceptors(B-enemy forces) that might attack the aircraft the interceptors in group A(friednly forces) are supposed to protect.
In my mind there needs to be a way to tell the interceptors in group A to attack enemy air assets (targets of opportunity of the air nature,BUT NOT GROUND) that could be a threat to the friendlys they are supposed to protect while making sure the friendlys they are protecting dont attack "targets of opportunity"(of any nature) until they have completed the mission assigned to them.
Unless ive misread your choices ,none of them allow this.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
Chuckle TM
-
red
- General
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: Feb 14 2004
- Location: New York
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
"I know that people have suggested a right click order to have the interceptors not attack ground targets but this seems quite backwards to me. An interceptor’s primary roll is air defense and should not be getting bogged down with land attacks. I feel that there should be no “additional clicks†to make a unit do what it’s designed to do"
I agree,Interceptors must be used quickly to be of use and needless clicking will delay them.
It would also be better for them to "behave" better initially instead of being tolf explicitely what to attack and what.
So basically you plan to change the behaviour aircraft show while moving and while loitering an area?
What about the "bomb upgrade" order?
Lets assume you also take some fighters into the group and want to attack upgrades,wouldnt the interceptors just join the attack instead of watching for enemy air units?
I think that both fighters and interceptors should only attack the targets they are designed for ,unless you order them otherwise in which case you would have to tell the single interceptor units to attack an upgrade or ground unit.
But in a group the units should act according to their roles even when the groups mission is to bomb an upgrade.
I agree,Interceptors must be used quickly to be of use and needless clicking will delay them.
It would also be better for them to "behave" better initially instead of being tolf explicitely what to attack and what.
So basically you plan to change the behaviour aircraft show while moving and while loitering an area?
What about the "bomb upgrade" order?
Lets assume you also take some fighters into the group and want to attack upgrades,wouldnt the interceptors just join the attack instead of watching for enemy air units?
I think that both fighters and interceptors should only attack the targets they are designed for ,unless you order them otherwise in which case you would have to tell the single interceptor units to attack an upgrade or ground unit.
But in a group the units should act according to their roles even when the groups mission is to bomb an upgrade.
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
(Tkobo)- I could be wrong, but i always thought that "targets of opportunity" were only supposed to be attacked AFTER the primary mission was completed (or scrubbed).
Well, the definition of “targets of opportunity†is still up for adjustment. I don’t think that interceptors’ firing on other aircraft en-route to their destination hurts anything if they don’t adjust course to do it. I suppose the only concern is they could use up their entire payload too soon.
(Tkobo) - In my mind there needs to be a way to tell the interceptors in group A to attack enemy air assets (targets of opportunity of the air nature,BUT NOT GROUND) that could be a threat to the friendlys they are supposed to protect while making sure the friendlys they are protecting dont attack "targets of opportunity"(of any nature) until they have completed the mission assigned to them.
What you’re describing is a mix of two orders. You’re describing that you’ve told the interceptors to “move to†the destination and the fighters to “attack†a selected unit. This would always be done in two orders. Where it gets complicated is if you tell a mixed stack to do on order only. As two separate orders, my suggestion would work fine if you set all of them to “no opportunity fireâ€. The Interceptors would move to the location then engage only other air, the attack planes would move to the location, attack their target, then attack any targets they find. This is because the “move†and “attack†orders are complete. The “no opportunity fire†is only for during the execution of the order.
(Red) - Having a box 'Engage ground targets' like the 'Do not load missles' on the unit dialog seems like the level of control/time/etc. I would like.
Well, I won’t say no, but I would rather that the default actions just make them more intelligent on when they do/don’t engage ground forces.
(Juergen) - So basically you plan to change the behaviour aircraft show while moving and while loitering an area?
Yes. I would say more that we’re changing the behaviour during times of action/inaction. I feel that during inaction turning off “opportunity fire†should stop aircraft from firing on ground targets (FYI, this would not stop them from firing ground attack missiles such as AGM-130s at targets since they are launched from mid air.)
(Juergen) - What about the "bomb upgrade" order?
I would suggest this works the same as the attack unit order. If a mixed stack with opportunity fire off is given a bomb upgrade attack it would go with #3, if opportunity fire on it would go with #4. This does mean that the interceptors will attack the facility but this precisely what you asked them to do. The only thing we might be able to do is use something in advanced orders for the “move cautiousâ€.
Perhaps on “move cautious†interceptors should never go to close, even when ordered to perform an attack…?
Well, the definition of “targets of opportunity†is still up for adjustment. I don’t think that interceptors’ firing on other aircraft en-route to their destination hurts anything if they don’t adjust course to do it. I suppose the only concern is they could use up their entire payload too soon.
(Tkobo) - In my mind there needs to be a way to tell the interceptors in group A to attack enemy air assets (targets of opportunity of the air nature,BUT NOT GROUND) that could be a threat to the friendlys they are supposed to protect while making sure the friendlys they are protecting dont attack "targets of opportunity"(of any nature) until they have completed the mission assigned to them.
What you’re describing is a mix of two orders. You’re describing that you’ve told the interceptors to “move to†the destination and the fighters to “attack†a selected unit. This would always be done in two orders. Where it gets complicated is if you tell a mixed stack to do on order only. As two separate orders, my suggestion would work fine if you set all of them to “no opportunity fireâ€. The Interceptors would move to the location then engage only other air, the attack planes would move to the location, attack their target, then attack any targets they find. This is because the “move†and “attack†orders are complete. The “no opportunity fire†is only for during the execution of the order.
(Red) - Having a box 'Engage ground targets' like the 'Do not load missles' on the unit dialog seems like the level of control/time/etc. I would like.
Well, I won’t say no, but I would rather that the default actions just make them more intelligent on when they do/don’t engage ground forces.
(Juergen) - So basically you plan to change the behaviour aircraft show while moving and while loitering an area?
Yes. I would say more that we’re changing the behaviour during times of action/inaction. I feel that during inaction turning off “opportunity fire†should stop aircraft from firing on ground targets (FYI, this would not stop them from firing ground attack missiles such as AGM-130s at targets since they are launched from mid air.)
(Juergen) - What about the "bomb upgrade" order?
I would suggest this works the same as the attack unit order. If a mixed stack with opportunity fire off is given a bomb upgrade attack it would go with #3, if opportunity fire on it would go with #4. This does mean that the interceptors will attack the facility but this precisely what you asked them to do. The only thing we might be able to do is use something in advanced orders for the “move cautiousâ€.
Perhaps on “move cautious†interceptors should never go to close, even when ordered to perform an attack…?
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Well, than unless im missing something, the intercepters wont do thier job on the way to the target then.Thier mission should be to engage any enemy aircraft that could pose a direct threat to the bombers they are escorting ALONG the route of travel.As two separate orders, my suggestion would work fine if you set all of them to “no opportunity fireâ€. The Interceptors would move to the location then engage only other air, the attack planes would move to the location, attack their target, then attack any targets they find. This is because the “move†and “attack†orders are complete. The “no opportunity fire†is only for during the execution of the order.
They shouldnt be limited to only performing interceptions at the point of arrival at the bombers target.
Now there may not be a way to make this work with the game mechanics.
If not,than im fine with this as the solution as its better the other choices to me.
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
"Perhaps on “move cautious†interceptors should never go to close, even when ordered to perform an attack…?"
I dont think that this would help much,sometimes these few kilometers
appart will just count.
Besides cautious movement also means the group will be much slower.
Then they wont make the 14 bombing raids per day I ask of them.
"This does mean that the interceptors will attack the facility but this precisely what you asked them to do."
The mission of the group may be to bomb an upgrade but the interceptors role within that mission is to protect the fighters or bombers from enemy aircraft.
A role they wont fulfill...well then the only solution will be to use two seperate groups.
The interceptors will have to provide air supperiority and the fighter/bombers will make use of it.
And if interceptors will refrain from firing at ground targets while still engaging enemy aircrafts that should work out.
What about a way to make a group of interceptors spread out a little?
That would increase their coverage,handy for preventing transport planes and helicopters getting through.
I dont think that this would help much,sometimes these few kilometers
appart will just count.
Besides cautious movement also means the group will be much slower.
Then they wont make the 14 bombing raids per day I ask of them.
"This does mean that the interceptors will attack the facility but this precisely what you asked them to do."
The mission of the group may be to bomb an upgrade but the interceptors role within that mission is to protect the fighters or bombers from enemy aircraft.
A role they wont fulfill...well then the only solution will be to use two seperate groups.
The interceptors will have to provide air supperiority and the fighter/bombers will make use of it.
And if interceptors will refrain from firing at ground targets while still engaging enemy aircrafts that should work out.
What about a way to make a group of interceptors spread out a little?
That would increase their coverage,handy for preventing transport planes and helicopters getting through.
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
(Tkobo) - Well, than unless im missing something, the intercepters wont do thier job…
Actually you could with opportunity fire on, but then the interceptors would also fire on ground targets when they get to the destination. Not sure I have any other solution yet :(
(Juergen) - Besides cautious movement also means the group will be much slower.
That is true. I suppose it’s not as good a solution.
(Juergen) - ...well then the only solution will be to use two seperate groups.
Ya, I think that’s what should be done.
(Juergen) - What about a way to make a group of interceptors spread out a little?
The patrol command when you can use waypoints to set both the start and end position should take care of that.
Actually you could with opportunity fire on, but then the interceptors would also fire on ground targets when they get to the destination. Not sure I have any other solution yet :(
(Juergen) - Besides cautious movement also means the group will be much slower.
That is true. I suppose it’s not as good a solution.
(Juergen) - ...well then the only solution will be to use two seperate groups.
Ya, I think that’s what should be done.
(Juergen) - What about a way to make a group of interceptors spread out a little?
The patrol command when you can use waypoints to set both the start and end position should take care of that.
-
BattleGoat
- General
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
My 2 cents... Let me know if you think this would work for all situations.
Interceptors supporting bombers should be given an Escort command in which case they would only engage other air units as they move with the bombers. For this to happen, they can't be in the same grouping as the Fighters, they'd have to be separate and actually given the Escort order. (will work fine in Single Player games when you can pause the game long enough to set this up but will be difficult to set up in Multiplayer Real Time games)
When not escorting, but patrolling or moving... we could set Interceptors up so that by default they only attack air targets of opportunity and entirely ignore ground.
When "Moving" and having reached their destination, they can then engage any target of opportunity (air or ground) but they will always give priority to air. (On the returning flight to their base they would again NOT engage any ground targets)
Make a Right Click Option for Interceptors, "Ground Support", which would move them to their destination but engage all ground targets of opportunity as well.
Most of these options would only apply when you have ONLY interceptors selected. When you have both fighters and interceptors grouped together then it complicates the issue and you're going to have fighters engaging ground targets of opportunity before they get to the destination hex while interceptors won't until after they get there (thus separating the group).
Interceptors supporting bombers should be given an Escort command in which case they would only engage other air units as they move with the bombers. For this to happen, they can't be in the same grouping as the Fighters, they'd have to be separate and actually given the Escort order. (will work fine in Single Player games when you can pause the game long enough to set this up but will be difficult to set up in Multiplayer Real Time games)
When not escorting, but patrolling or moving... we could set Interceptors up so that by default they only attack air targets of opportunity and entirely ignore ground.
When "Moving" and having reached their destination, they can then engage any target of opportunity (air or ground) but they will always give priority to air. (On the returning flight to their base they would again NOT engage any ground targets)
Make a Right Click Option for Interceptors, "Ground Support", which would move them to their destination but engage all ground targets of opportunity as well.
Most of these options would only apply when you have ONLY interceptors selected. When you have both fighters and interceptors grouped together then it complicates the issue and you're going to have fighters engaging ground targets of opportunity before they get to the destination hex while interceptors won't until after they get there (thus separating the group).
- David
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
"When "Moving" and having reached their destination, they can then engage any target of opportunity (air or ground) but they will always give priority to air. (On the returning flight to their base they would again NOT engage any ground targets)"
No,Im against Interceptors fighting against ground targets without me explicitly telling them to.
Even if there is no other target it still means that there will be losses since their defence is not so good.
And every lost plane is a big loss.
No,Im against Interceptors fighting against ground targets without me explicitly telling them to.
Even if there is no other target it still means that there will be losses since their defence is not so good.
And every lost plane is a big loss.
-
ardem
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Jan 21 2004
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I still like the best idea which is to right click for a CAP , this will should then switch all the defaults, cause there are times I want fighters to CAP as well due to lack of interceptors, they should assigned a area which they hold in a waiting air pattern and anything that breach a certain air boundary or radius they take off after and try and destroy.
And that radius should be increased with AWACS in the air.
I still find the whole air combat is not refined (nor should it be) and plays more like ground combat units do rather then how air forces work.
For a start it would be rare that complete squadrons fly in groups to take out targets, you would get more like 5-6 planes or less to do missions.
CAPS hold in the rear and intercept targets with defined air defence zones, preferably I would like to see the airforce more AI controlled and ground units less controlled, just cause of the speed of battles.
I hardly get to click and scramble the majority of my planes to do things before reacting to something else they just move to fast, where the AI can control CAPs like I said above, they intercept air targets then move out of SAM and ground forces way and hold in station in the rear again without micromanaging it and pausing to micromanage it.
hopeful this just taken onboard and some value is taken out of it
And that radius should be increased with AWACS in the air.
I still find the whole air combat is not refined (nor should it be) and plays more like ground combat units do rather then how air forces work.
For a start it would be rare that complete squadrons fly in groups to take out targets, you would get more like 5-6 planes or less to do missions.
CAPS hold in the rear and intercept targets with defined air defence zones, preferably I would like to see the airforce more AI controlled and ground units less controlled, just cause of the speed of battles.
I hardly get to click and scramble the majority of my planes to do things before reacting to something else they just move to fast, where the AI can control CAPs like I said above, they intercept air targets then move out of SAM and ground forces way and hold in station in the rear again without micromanaging it and pausing to micromanage it.
hopeful this just taken onboard and some value is taken out of it
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
I think that would prove to be very disruptive. The latest we've come up with is to have a more inteligent AI control of the units that will examine the stats and decide if the unit should engage or not. This now sits on George's plate to work on the AI and present me with a first version to critic. We'll see where that gets us...
-
Steelsky
- Captain
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Jan 31 2004
- Location: Denmark/Sweden
With power like that do you hear a whoosing sound when you breathe? Have you ever told anyone that the Emperor is not as forgiving as you are? Or perhaps told your son to join you in ruling the galaxy after chopping off his hand?Balthagor wrote:This now sits on George's plate to work on the AI and present me with a first version to critic. We'll see where that gets us...
/Steelsky
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
