Air units DO NOT WORK

[brekehan]

Since the BG guys keep insisting that things aren't shooting my air units or that there is something else close by. I shall do my best to prove that every single unit in the game takes down air units, that air units are worthless and broken as is. As I don't have a debug version of the game to spawn units, I'll add scenarios to this thread as I come across them.

1) Flawed Test Deleted (disproved by powercell)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Air vs Garrison

The contenders:




Notice
The air unit is _not_ low air
Update 2 patch notes say "Garrisons no longer attack air units"

Before:
Notice the air unit is at full health as he approaches the garrison.
I've cleared everything around this isolated city eliminating any nearby units.
The air unit takes no damage while not on the same hex as the garrison, eliminating the "something else is shooting it"


Now order the air unit to 'air patrol' the hex the garrison is in.
* garrison does not fire back *

Now order the air unit to 'bomb unit'

After (30 seconds, and 5 resupplies from airfield 6 hexes up):



Garrison, has a mosquito bite.
Garrsion will be fully healed in less that 5 days and cost nothing.
288 Million dollar aircraft that supposedly does 5X the dmg is almost completely destroyed.
288 Million dollar aircraft will take approx 6 months to repair.

Save Game:
ftp://christopherpisz.is-a-geek.com/pub ... rrison.rar


Let's try the same scenario with 4 higher tech air units vs 4 garrison......

The contenders:



Notice
The air unit is _not_ low air
Update 2 patch notes say "Garrisons no longer attack air units"

Before:
Notice the air unit is at full health as he approaches the garrison.
The air unit supposedly does 10X the dmg compared to the garrison.
I've cleared everything around this isolated city eliminating any nearby units.
The air unit takes no damage while not on the same hex as the garrison, eliminating the "something else is shooting it"


Now order the air unit to 'air patrol' the hex the garrison is in.
* garrison does not fire back *

Now order the air unit to 'bomb unit'

After (60 seconds, and 5 resupplies from airfield 6 hexes up):


Garrison has lost 3 men, but wins the battle.
Garrsion will be fully healed in less that 5 days and cost nothing.
4 X 560 Million dollar aircraft that supposedly does 10X the dmg lost 2 units and nearly the last 2 as well (had I not paused)i
4 X 560 Million dollar aircraft will take approx 432 days to rebuild and repair.

[powercell]

That UAV is low air unit (the helicopter icon means low altitude).

Also, most aircrafts will go to low altitude when attacking ground units with their default weapon (not missiles). The only exception I know of is bomber class. This is probably the main reason for many to complain about the effectiveness of aircrafts (especially high tech ones) against anything with low air att capability.

[brekehan]

most aircrafts will go to low altitude when attacking ground units with their default weapon (not missiles). The only exception I know of is bomber class. This is probably the main reason for many to complain about the effectiveness of aircrafts (especially high tech ones) against anything with low air att capability.

So, why even call an air unit mid air or high air when it is effectively low air?
Sure they can sit up in high air, but when it comes time to use it...*poof* destroyed.
Especially, considering that the only way to move an air unit is 'air patrol' which makes it attack and become vulnerbale.

I'd be alot happier if they made mid air _always_ mid air, attacking or nay. Same with high air.
Alternatively if they lessened the dmg done to all air craft by non AA ground and sea units by about 50X what it is now.

[Roest]

I somewhat have to agree with brekehan. Air units aren't really a viable option right now. The only thing they are good for is border defense. In all other scenarios they get damaged/destroyed too fast (not sure if it's part of units damaging them that aren't supposed to be able to) and then spend months in repair.

These are my main two gripes: You need to watch them closely and pull out fast to not lose them = lots of micro management and the extremly long repair times.

[tkobo]

This seems to me to be another case of not using units the right way.

You dont want your mid air units going to low air,set their roe so that they wont.

You dont want your air units coming under alot of aa attack,have them attack from long range with missiles.

Its not that air units dont work, its that you arent using them in a way that works to their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.


Now ,if you complaint had instead been "AA needs a nerf",you might have had a case.

[brekehan]

This seems to me to be another case of not using units the right way.
You dont want your mid air units going to low air,set their roe so that they wont.

So basically, never attack with them, since they evidently go to low air while attacking

You dont want your air units coming under alot of aa attack,have them attack from long range with missiles.

I guess you are defining AA attack as every single unit in the game. Since every single unit in the game fires back.
We are taking on garrisons here!! Hardly AA.

Its not that air units dont work, its that you arent using them in a way that works to their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.

strength: shoot missles from a distance
weakness: any other use at all

Maybe that just doesn't make any sense to me.
It doesn't seem to match what I would think air units are used for.

I mean, intuitively you would figure that an air unit whose tech sheet displayed no missle capacity, no air attack, but high soft and hard attack values was designed to attack vs ground with their default weapons.....
Why have these units in the game if we are all forced to "misuse" them?

Now ,if you complaint had instead been "AA needs a nerf",you might have had a case.

[/quote]

I don't disagree and that is just one aspect of my complaints as to why air units are worthless in this game.


So, basically you are saying, I should ignore all attack values on all air units, never use their default attack, and only use them as missile platforms?
Why have attack values at all on air craft then?
Why bother teching them at all then? I might as well use some huge transport that can carry missles from 1960
Why bother having the different classes of aircraft then?
We might as well have one type 'missile carrier' and give it two stats: "missile capacity" "max missile size"

You don't see something wrong with that?!


You are describing how to use them in a flawed system.
I realize that is currently all they are good for.

I am describing the flaws in the system.

[tkobo]

So basically, never attack with them, since they evidently go to low air while attacking

Thats an extreme exaggeration.They dont go to low attack when attacking other aircraft,they dont go to low attack when firing missiles.

I guess you are defining AA attack as every single unit in the game. Since every single unit in the game fires back.
We are taking on garrisons here!! Hardly AA.

Another exaggeration.I can think of units that dont fight back when attacked by aircraft.AND more importantly, i can get my aircraft to rack up kills with very little loss on their part thur smart usage(of the non-missile type).


strength: shoot missles from a distance
weakness: any other use at all

Nope.Another exaggeration.


Maybe that just doesn't make any sense to me.
It doesn't seem to match what I would think air units are used for.

And here could be a big part of your problem.Aircraft in real life that use short range missiles, bombs,and guns to attack land forces take loses.
Gulf war 1,circa 70+ aircraft lost or damaged.And this was against an almost completely outclassed foe.

I mean, intuitively you would figure that an air unit whose tech sheet displayed no missle capacity, no air attack, but high soft and hard attack values was designed to attack vs ground with their default weapons.....

I wouldnt, unless the aircraft also had no missile capacity.
And even then, id expect to take losses when such aircraft attacked.

Why have these units in the game if we are all forced to "misuse" them?

We are not.YOU and some other are choosing to misuse them.HUGE difference.



I don't disagree and that is just one aspect of my complaints as to why air units are worthless in this game.

Another exaggeration.They are FAR from useless.Your simply not using them well, and than complainging about the results.


So, basically you are saying, I should ignore all attack values on all air units, never use their default attack, and only use them as missile platforms?

Nope, im saying use them like any other units,intelligently.It isnt hard.



Why have attack values at all on air craft then?

You have attack values because used intelligently, they do their job very well.

Why bother teching them at all then? I might as well use some huge transport that can carry missles from 1960

For you, you might as well.One bad use is just about effective as another.Of course you could simply learn to use the right aircraft correctly with the undertsanding that even doing so,you will lose some.



Why bother having the different classes of aircraft then?

You know, we can do this all day.The different classes exist becuase used correctly they serve their purpose.
You choosing to use them incorrectly than complain about the result has little to do with the units.
In this case ,They dont need fixing, your approach to their use does.



We might as well have one type 'missile carrier' and give it two stats: "missile capacity" "max missile size"

You don't see something wrong with that?!

Yes, i see a huge amount wrong with your aregument.Its whats flawed.And your refusal to accept that is compounding your issues.
Your premise of the units dont work is wrong.Til you get past that,there isnt much to do for you.

You are describing how to use them in a flawed system.

No, your insisting on using them incorrectly,than insisting on complaining about the result.While there probably is a balance issue,there almost always is,its not the heart of your problem.

There are more than a few real flaws in the system.
Things like:
1)loiter pattern
2)rebasing issues
3)resupply of missiles from carriers
4)possibly/likely balance issues
etc...
BUT "Air units DO NOT WORK" is not one of them.

You might as well park a new destroyer in a hex adjacent to enemy ground units, and than complain the destroyer got sunk.

[Klem]

Your using multi-roll aircraft... which is why they are listed as mid/high.. because during some missions thats where they will be, Up high.. doing fighter things.. when they do CAS (close air support) or bombing, they will be low level aircraft..

Every unit does have some simple AA support.. Even if its a bunch of guys firing .50 cal machine guns into the air.. You put enough bullets in the air.. anything at a low level will get shot down.. (F-117 in serbia as an example) Plus almost every unit will have some organic AA defence.. MANPADs are cheap (relativly) to purchase and pretty easy to use.

Personally I don't see a flaw in the system.. Very few aircraft in this day and age are used as actual CAS.. the A-10 is one of the few that goes in hard.. The vast majority of aircraft drop bombs from very high up, or a fair distance away as using GPS guided bombs, or laser designators makes it a lot safer to the aircraft. Which, in the game, I believe is shown using missles more than just close attacks. It might not be perfect.. but I wouldn't call it flawed.

Klem

[tkobo]

Dont forget supply units.
Thats a whole catagory of units and alot of them have NO attack stats at all.

[brekehan]

I can think of units that dont fight back when attacked by aircraft.AND more importantly, i can get my aircraft to rack up kills with very little loss on their part thur smart usage(of the non-missile type).

Example?
Screenshots?
SaveGame?

I have _never_ successfully destroyed anything with air craft no matter what air vs what ground, without missles.
Even submarines blew up my air craft 20 to 1.

You can say I am not using them intelligently all you want, but until I see an example of what you think "intelligent" is, I doubt I will see your point of view.

For criminy sakes! the test was versus garrisons! The cheapest and fastest building unit in the game. they has an attack value of _6_ !!

Please demonstrate your "intelligent" use of aircraft.

Aircraft in real life that use short range missiles, bombs,and guns to attack land forces take loses.

So please show me the article, newspaper, video, or any other source you have where a city throws together rag-tag militia forces and destroys billions of dollars of aircraft _without_ the use of any AA.

If you start spewing off how everyone has rocket launchers and SAMs, I have to say that the game already represents those as seperate units and when those units are not present, there is no reason to think your air units will be taken out like flies.

Those guys with machine guns must have really good aim!!!
They can hit f-22s going mach 6?? (disclaimer: I don't know their real speed)
They can destroy them at better than a 1 for 1 ratio?
Please!!

I would love to see what would happen if the USA decided tomorrow to send 20 blackhawks to lay waste to the populance of Austin Texas, where I live. What do you think the kill ratio would be as the civilians scramble?

Sure we could all break into the gun shop and fire into the air. I don't know anyone who is a good enough shot to have a chance.
I'll even let you suppose that there was a military quality brigade of infantry protecting the capitol with no AA. They can fire whatever they like as long as it is not classified as AA. It wouldn't do squat.

Gulf war 1,circa 70+ aircraft lost or damaged.And this was against an almost completely outclassed foe.

There was also AA involved.

And even then, id expect to take losses when such aircraft attacked.[/color]

Sure, maybe you should lose 1 air craft for every 8 garrisons.
But on a 1 to 1 ratio?!
Are you kidding me?

They are FAR from useless.Your simply not using them well, and than complainging about the results.[/color]

I haven't seen any examples of "good use"
As far as I can tell, you are telling me that everything except bombers should never engage land units, unless they rely soley on missiles.

That really doesn't match the vietnam movies I watched where infantry was dug in, we were losing, a few choppers arive and save the day, chasing the enemy with rounds of machine gun fire back into the jungle. They didn't always sit off in the distance firing missiles. The videos I saw only showed them getting destroyed when they were surprised by AA they didn't realize was there. One or two might have gotten taken out by infantry fire, but no where close to a 1 for 1 ratio!!!

Nope, im saying use them like any other units,intelligently. It isnt hard.
You have attack values because used intelligently, they do their job very well.

Again, please give some video of your idea of what "intelligent" use is with air units that have 0 missiles.
I'd love to see them do anything at all vs any land units.

[brekehan]

Even if its a bunch of guys firing .50 cal machine guns into the air.. You put enough bullets in the air.. anything at a low level will get shot down..

Go get 30 of your buddies, you can all have .50 cal machine guns.
I'll get 30 of mine and we'll all hop into some EuroFighter Typhoon / EF2000 flying over you at mach 2.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/
You guys can hide out at the library here in town and set up on the roof.

I know where you are and you know where I am. Go!

Who do you think is going to win?

Notice the armaments
* AGM 65 Maverick
* ALARM anti-radar missile
* Sea Eagle anti-ship missile
* Paveway laser guided bombs
* CR-V7 unguided rockets
* BL755 cluster bombs.v
* Durandal, other free fall bombs.

I will go ahead and give you that I won't use either the
* ALARM anti-radar missile
* Sea Eagle anti-ship missile

I'd love to see you stand around for more than a second.

The vast majority of aircraft drop bombs from very high up, or a fair distance away as using GPS guided bombs, or laser designators makes it a lot safer to the aircraft.

Well, exactly. In this game it depicts them going in low and receiving fire!
If the building, soft, and hard attack values do not represent
* Paveway laser guided bombs
* CR-V7 unguided rockets
* BL755 cluster bombs.v
* Durandal, other free fall bombs.

Where exactly are they coming from? My EuroFighter Typhoon / EF2000 boxing them with win gusts?

[heckler_rider]

Even if its a bunch of guys firing .50 cal machine guns into the air.. You put enough bullets in the air.. anything at a low level will get shot down..

Go get 30 of your buddies, you can all have .50 cal machine guns.
I'll get 30 of mine and we'll all hop into some EuroFighter Typhoon / EF2000 flying over you at mach 2.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/
You guys can hide out at the library here in town and set up on the roof.

I know where you are and you know where I am. Go!

Can I be in the group that gets the planes?

I agree the air power is way to ineffective/vulnerable. The cost benefit is way to upside down....

Take a look at this website

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/mil ... tstorm.htm

desert storm stats

f15e 2200+ sorties 2 lost
a10 8000+ sorties 5 lost
f117 1250 sorties (some into Bagdad) not even a scratch

[Roest]

Every unit does have some simple AA support.. Even if its a bunch of guys firing .50 cal machine guns into the air.. You put enough bullets in the air.. anything at a low level will get shot down.. (F-117 in serbia as an example) Plus almost every unit will have some organic AA defence.. MANPADs are cheap (relativly) to purchase and pretty easy to use.

Klem

Totally unrelated but that's a bad example. Granted the guy acted a hero once he was shot down and survived 6 days in enemy terrain but he got shot down because of utter stupidity and probably will never fly a military plane again. And it wasn't .50 cal machine guns, that's for sure.

[Klem]

Your right.. it wasn't .50.. but it shows that it can happen.. and thats all I was trying to show.

Klem

[gauffa]

I think we have spent too much time listening to the US media and the handy-dandy USAF. Every military objective conceived cannot be accomplished with aircraft alone. Those stats from Desert Storm are good but too many conditions aren't taken into account by this discussion. Many of the attacks that US aircraft made on Iraqi positions were made during night-time conditions. These weren't pilots taking A-10s into city streets trying to attack Iraqi militias in pill-boxes. These guys were making high altitude attacks with laser guided and gps guided munitions. Even when the A-10s were making strafing runs on enemy armored columns and tanks they were minimizing their time that they were exposed to ground fire.

Anyway... Part of the issue is that too many of us think that Air Power alone can win a war because we've had that crammed down our throats for the last decade or so. It ain't true. You have to put boots on the ground.

Outside of that... I'd love to hear some of tkobo's strategies for minimizing damage to his air units when using them without missiles.

Anywho, that's my take. I'm really anxious to hear what tkobo's got to say about that.