BGForums

By playing 3 scenarios so far i saw this problem:

1) Aircrafts are way too expensive compared to what they can do. Except bombers, interceptors and Fighters are really useless for attacking land troops. They maybe kill one cheap inf unit before getting damaged/killed.
This can be fine with fighters, but with interceptors?

2) AA are too cheap and too effective. you put 4-7 AA units (which cost a fraction of an aircraft) in an hex and ypou can be sure you are safe from air attack.
In RL, as Iraq showed, fighters and interceptors are almost invulnerable to cheap AA units. So either you increase the AA cost by a lot or decrease the efficiency.

Result so far is that i completely ignore the air force. i just mass build some cheap AA. in RL air supremacy is the key factor.

You're going to need to get more ppl involved in this discussion, I've already seen one person say the exact opposite and the opinion around the office is that either aircraft are the right strength or too strong. I look forward to hearing what ppl have to say on this.

When doing tests to prove/disprove, remember to take into account spotting, terrain, aircraft type, AA type, and surrounding external effects.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Actually its like the AA is ineffective i had 10 or so Hercules AA's and they were shooting at what looked like F-18's and F-15's and i only shot 2 units down and at th same time the planes were killing alot of my ground units.

Bergsjaeger= mountain hunter

I'm far from an expert on the topic, but I'm not sure the above is true...

The US fighter/bombers wreaked havoc on ground units out in the field, where they were relatively unprotected by AA. However, when it came to attacking targets in places like Baghdad, which were protected by insane amounts of AA, the US switched to using high altitude aircraft.

In SR2010, there are varying levels of altitude as well. Sending in a low altitude attack aircraft against something with even cheap AA units is suicidal, but send over a few high altitude bombers, and I bet they won't get a scratch, except from more sophisticated AA units with good ratings against high altitude.


-Cauldyth

Also remember that the US has never faced an opponent with equivalent technology in modern times. Sure, F-16's can make runs in territory with 1940's AA guns and come out untouched, but it would be a differnt thing if they had to face Patriots and Linebackers or even French Crotales or German Rapiers.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

I'm with Balthagor in that aircraft are too powerful...well, the enemy airforce is too stong and my airforce is weak

An observation. I've had a supply helicopter crossing enemy territory at least 5-6 hexes away from any known enemy units (sufficient radar to see enemy hexes clearly) and my helicopter has taken damage from attacks. My unit is not visibly attacked by anything but I see little damage explosions on the unit as it's flying along.

Is this right (I assume so) and what can attack my air units from perhaps 80+km, or it is something else?

Pac 2's reach over 80kms as do some other ground based AAs.
Many aircraft simulate beyond visual range missiles with ranges over 80km. F14 Tomcats have about 215 km range.

Actually, of the crew in the office, I'm one that thinks they are balanced right.

However, if they are not, I'm the one that gets to rebalance them so I guess it's a selfserving interest in a way

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Balthagor:

Apologies. I read things in your post that you didn't actually say. I suspect that aircraft are about right or a bit too strong, but it's really hard to judge.

I think my main problems have been trying to fight similar or greater numbers of aircraft over the enemy city, possibly full of enemy AA.

3IFF Arrr, sending your aircraft over enemy cities could be the problem.

If your aircraft make bombing runs in close terrian I think that they have a lower defence value.

Perhaps somebody else could confirm?

Thought so...I've engaged enemy aircraft in clear terrain and seeming won the battle, again, it's hard to tell in the heat of battle.

I knew I was doing something wrong...I guess the city was full of AA. I was just immensely frustrated by the enemy aircraft destroying my forces with dozens of missiles. In the end I rushed the city and killed the planes by denying them a landing place.

I take it that if a unit is moving, it can't fire?? If so, then that's why my AA is apparently less effective?

Ive seen units fire on the move.

Also what type of bombers are you using ?

I use B52s and B2s - and i can bomb my AI opponents almost at will.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

I've asked George to make sure the right values are being used. He said he would, but that he is fairly certain it is.

What you might be seeing is that the units in cities get defensive bonuses so they get suppressed less, damaged less and will therefore fire back faster and stronger than AA in the open...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

I also agree that some of the land-based AA weapons are a little on the overpowered side.

If you use certain types of AA weapons you can easily take out an airforce 3x as expensive with very minor losses... it seems like the low+mid long range AA is either too cheap to make or too effective.

It's really easy to get two side-by-side tiles, each with a heavy supply truck and 6 Patriot-III's on them... and for the cost of 1.2b/year you can field more AA firepower than 10 squadrens of F-14's (which will cost you over 3b/year)

Also the Patriot-III's don't have to worry about enemy Patriot-III's shooting them down while they're trying to shoot aircraft down :p

got any examples?

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com