I like air units the most of any other unit in Spring. Unfortunately they don't really operate in a realistic way nor are they easy to micromanage when it comes to intercepting incoming enemy air units. Patrolling units works to some extent, but when I add in a fuel factor than this makes patrolling air units unworthwhile. Worse yet is when I find my air units are patrolling somewhere where not needed while the base gets pounded mercilessly. What would be better is a way to cue units into a queue for intercepting the bad guys, and tie this in with an easy to configure kill box.
I have been thinking about this idea for about a year and the easiest way to do this would probably be to create a new "building type" - not a plant, more like an airpad - that solely concerns itself with acting as an air base for fighters. One unit would be cued to fly a tight circular pattern above the base or perhaps it would just be sitting on a pad, and this unit would not consume fuel in this position in order to preserve fuel restrictions. Holding down the shift key with this unit would display its killbox, a simple light ghostly rectangle around the base. Each side would have a small arrow to expand/contract the box in one directional dimension. Each corner of the rectangle would have a drag box for expanding/contracting its size in bi-directional dimensions. The killbox defines the zone that is scanned for trespassing enemy air units. The base unit would send its cued unit out to meet the trespasser and a new unit would be cued from the base's queue. Clicking directly on the base's pad would send any air units currently clicked upon to fly to the base, land, disappear, and from there would become part of the base's queue.
Units in queue that await to be cued could sit in an invisible holding cell within the base. Concieveably if the units are in flight they should be able to scramble towards their target more quickly. When the cued unit was scrambled at a target a new unit could appear on the launch pad. As units get cued up from the queue they'd take off from the base's pad and begin circling the base. Individual air units one wants removed from the base's queue could simply be clicked and given new orders which would remove it from the base's queue.
What I like about this idea is that it gives us a way to use fighters like SAM missiles, only they can be reused over and over. By forcing the player to upgrade both SAM and potential air-interceptor units - in order to be effective as the game develops - a new facet is created within the game.
Create way to scramble air units as interceptors
Moderator: Moderators
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
What about using an air pad instead of a new building type that is just like an air pad?I have been thinking about this idea for about a year and the easiest way to do this would probably be to create a new "building type" - not a plant, more like an airpad - that solely concerns itself with acting as an air base for fighters. One unit would be cued to fly a tight circular pattern above the base or perhaps it would just be sitting on a pad, and this unit would not consume fuel in this position in order to preserve fuel restrictions.
And I'm sure there is some combination of Shift, Fight, Patrol, Repeat and Roam that's bound to make working interception route.
Also, if fuels messes with your interceptors, ask your modder to remove the fuel! I never liked fuel anyway.
jackalope - the micromanagement to control every intercept is too much. Even in a team game one player couldn't hope to fend off any sort of complicated air attack.
zwzsg - this is with my own mod. I want fuel as a limitation. And the patrol/roam options waste too much time and effort to get an interception carried out. With this concept they could be spotted by other units or by radar. The killbox defines precisely the parameters to which they operate, not some chaotic pattern defined with roam/patrol commands.
AF - What does this idea have to do with repair/refuelling pads? These are bases to launch air interception units against incoming enemy air units. They are not for all air units.
In the grand scheme of things, an interceptor base offers so much more than a mob of scattered airborne missile-launching platforms for interception of incoming air units. As it is it makes no sense for an airborne interceptor to use anything but missiles because they would have to be uber units in speed to use lasers, rockets, machine guns, and cannon. By then the interceptors become all around bad asses of air superiority which is something I want to avoid. I also want more than 1-2 tech levels, more like up to 10, and a hierarchy of unit-weapon combinations depending on the player's progress. By eliminating some of the micro with air units, especially in regards to using them in defense, this allows me to offer a more thorough play choice.
zwzsg - this is with my own mod. I want fuel as a limitation. And the patrol/roam options waste too much time and effort to get an interception carried out. With this concept they could be spotted by other units or by radar. The killbox defines precisely the parameters to which they operate, not some chaotic pattern defined with roam/patrol commands.
AF - What does this idea have to do with repair/refuelling pads? These are bases to launch air interception units against incoming enemy air units. They are not for all air units.
In the grand scheme of things, an interceptor base offers so much more than a mob of scattered airborne missile-launching platforms for interception of incoming air units. As it is it makes no sense for an airborne interceptor to use anything but missiles because they would have to be uber units in speed to use lasers, rockets, machine guns, and cannon. By then the interceptors become all around bad asses of air superiority which is something I want to avoid. I also want more than 1-2 tech levels, more like up to 10, and a hierarchy of unit-weapon combinations depending on the player's progress. By eliminating some of the micro with air units, especially in regards to using them in defense, this allows me to offer a more thorough play choice.
I have 1 long patrol route that encircles my base twice over, that all aircraft are added to as soon as they leave the factory. I then build refeuling posts/air pads along this patrol route and then inside incase of an enemy attack.
This ensures that i have suitable abse wide coverage no matter what as logn as interceptors are being built.
It is also far mroe efficient than the longwinded proposal of madrats, and possible without any effort on behalf of the devs.
I also put forward that madrats proposal is grossly innefficient comapred to my own methods, and that madrats proposal is possible using lua widgets, and even mroe so that the effort would be better put into implementing an automated version of my own method.
My own method is superior and can be done in many games effortlessly. I do it in both supreme commander, OTA, XTA, EE, Gundam, and BA/CA/AA, and it works very well.
This ensures that i have suitable abse wide coverage no matter what as logn as interceptors are being built.
It is also far mroe efficient than the longwinded proposal of madrats, and possible without any effort on behalf of the devs.
I also put forward that madrats proposal is grossly innefficient comapred to my own methods, and that madrats proposal is possible using lua widgets, and even mroe so that the effort would be better put into implementing an automated version of my own method.
My own method is superior and can be done in many games effortlessly. I do it in both supreme commander, OTA, XTA, EE, Gundam, and BA/CA/AA, and it works very well.
I think this is an overly complicated solution to something that isn't much of a problem in the first place. How useful patrolling air units are, and how easy or difficult it is to intercept, is dependent on the mod. Things like the speed of bombers and the range of radar play a huge role in how interception works. For exampe, in NOTA I've stopped groups of 20+ bombers before a single one reached its target, and without much micromanagement at all- just assign your interceptor groups a hotkey and, when you see a large formation of radar contacts moving your way, give them a patrol or fight command to intercept. Interception is an extremely powerful defense against strategic bombers, so much so that it's really a waste of time to attempt a bombing campaign without first achieving air supremacy.
So, I would disagree with your statement that air units aren't realistic- that is a mod issue, not a spring one. Same for how worthwhile patrolling air units is. Again, nota uses fuel and yet patrolling is most definitely worthwhile- having your fighters grounded at some building in the heart of your base is not going to help interception times. Also, this would as you yourself said make fighters more like reusable missiles. This simply makes them another form of AA defense, that functionally is no different than a long range SAM. It would take away from the game's depth.
Another thing is, adding fixed guns to fighters makes them better interceptors and worse air superiority relative to an equivalent fighter that uses missiles. Fixed guns are a relatively poor air superiority weapon because the unit has to get behind the enemy, which takes time. In larger numbers this becomes horribly inefficient compared to a fighter that merely has to point in the general direction of the enemy to deal full damage. To use nota as an example again, see stealth fighters vs. heavy interceptors, or freedom fighters vs. bladewings.
So, I would disagree with your statement that air units aren't realistic- that is a mod issue, not a spring one. Same for how worthwhile patrolling air units is. Again, nota uses fuel and yet patrolling is most definitely worthwhile- having your fighters grounded at some building in the heart of your base is not going to help interception times. Also, this would as you yourself said make fighters more like reusable missiles. This simply makes them another form of AA defense, that functionally is no different than a long range SAM. It would take away from the game's depth.
Another thing is, adding fixed guns to fighters makes them better interceptors and worse air superiority relative to an equivalent fighter that uses missiles. Fixed guns are a relatively poor air superiority weapon because the unit has to get behind the enemy, which takes time. In larger numbers this becomes horribly inefficient compared to a fighter that merely has to point in the general direction of the enemy to deal full damage. To use nota as an example again, see stealth fighters vs. heavy interceptors, or freedom fighters vs. bladewings.
Your method is not efficient unless the mod uses uber units for fighters. You missiles have to be long range or else you won't get but a small number of incoming targets intercepted on the approach. By then its too late. I can predict by your statement that you use small bases and have never played competitive games where one target's destruction makes all the difference in the outcome.AF wrote: It is also far mroe efficient than the longwinded proposal of madrats, and possible without any effort on behalf of the devs.
Why on earth would I ever want to inject crude lua scripting shit into my mod?
Thor, respectively speaking not all mods are NOTA. I am looking for interceptor bases as a rudimentary form of play that happens on a scale that is not currently possible. Micromanaging large groups of interceptors is more crude than using interceptors on a one-for-one basis against incoming targets. As it is now there is no way to offer one for one quick targeting without wasting groups. I am gearing for play where groups would best suit the land units as air units will be expensive. And in my opinion the SAMs don't play much part in the game until technology gets to the extreme. From what I gather you feel air power is an all or nothing solution. I want grays.
I build large sprawling bases and expand as much as possible.
I believe that expansion is a necessary goal, and that territory is extremely valuable both for economic reasons and strategic reasons.
This way I dont need to build air interceptor stations that have boxes where everything in the box is under interceptor AA, giving the enemy a huge target "hey come blow up this building leaving a gaping hole in my defences as my anti air capabilities are obliterated and air superiority is lost"
My method is more secure, more foolproof, doesnt require extra resources to maintain ontop of fuel pads and the aircraft themselves.
And please dont swear. I'm sure a mod specific aircraft handling building belongs in lua mod rules or a widget....
I believe that expansion is a necessary goal, and that territory is extremely valuable both for economic reasons and strategic reasons.
My method guarantees that as time progresses all the fighters become involved in fights when possible. You probably assume ym patrol has about 5 or 10 fighters, when actually if I play supcom I can visibly see my patrol routes as thick lines of radar dots, composed of 10% scouters, 35% gunship/bomber mix, and 60% interceptors. I build interceptors continuosly all game to add to my patrol route. If my patrol becomes overcrowded I select a large chunk and create a aptrol thats bigger with more loops and covering a larger area.Your method is not efficient unless the mod uses uber units for fighters.
This way I dont need to build air interceptor stations that have boxes where everything in the box is under interceptor AA, giving the enemy a huge target "hey come blow up this building leaving a gaping hole in my defences as my anti air capabilities are obliterated and air superiority is lost"
My method is more secure, more foolproof, doesnt require extra resources to maintain ontop of fuel pads and the aircraft themselves.
And please dont swear. I'm sure a mod specific aircraft handling building belongs in lua mod rules or a widget....
Madrat, You've said several times that intercepting takes far too much micromanagement, that patrolling is not worthwhile, that fighters would have to be uber units to work as interceptors. I keep bringing up NOTA because quite frankly it has the most realistic implementation of aircraft in any mod to date (IMO of course) and it directly contradicts all three of these statements. I'll be the first to agree that fighter behavior should be improved- namely to allow fighters on roam to auto-intercept enemies outside their own LOS, like in SupCom. But I fail to see why you think interception is so difficult that
My point about the sams is that by attaching fighters to a building you are making them functionally identical to a long-range AA building with similar stats. The thing that distinguishes fighters from AA is that they're mobile. If your army is attacked by gunships, you send fighters. If an undefended part of your base is attacked, you send fighters. If all your fighters are grouped up in a building, you won't be able to use them in situations like these when you really need them- not without some annoying micromanagement anyway.
What is so difficult about pressing "P" and clicking somewhere near the enemy?? The fighters will automatically choose their targets- it really isn't that hard!Even in a team game one player couldn't hope to fend off any sort of complicated air attack.
My point about the sams is that by attaching fighters to a building you are making them functionally identical to a long-range AA building with similar stats. The thing that distinguishes fighters from AA is that they're mobile. If your army is attacked by gunships, you send fighters. If an undefended part of your base is attacked, you send fighters. If all your fighters are grouped up in a building, you won't be able to use them in situations like these when you really need them- not without some annoying micromanagement anyway.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
I dont know what everyone else does but I set the air factory making fighters as group 9 and give it an order to patrol a sensible area, so all aircraft coming out follow this order. Pressing 9 then selects every fighter I have, a quick hotkey press and they have a fight order to wherever they are needed.
hotkeys hotkeys hotkeeeyys
hotkeys hotkeys hotkeeeyys
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
To begin, select factory, p, (hold shift), right click patrol pattern, (release shift), set build order, set repeat on.
when enemy attacks:
select 1 aircraft, ctrl-z, ctrl-#, a, left-click drag-box target area.. watch fight ensue... (if needed to re-select attack group, just push the # again....)
after attacks and d-fens:
push #, (hold shift), p, right click new patrol route, (release shift) left click.
they return to a patrolling pattern different from the origional, leaving even MORE lines of patrol on the map
unit groups, and patrol patters = ubar wtf pwn air d-fens
the sukky part is when mobile AA flak tanks roll in... then its like, "omgwtf noes d-fens!"
when enemy attacks:
select 1 aircraft, ctrl-z, ctrl-#, a, left-click drag-box target area.. watch fight ensue... (if needed to re-select attack group, just push the # again....)
after attacks and d-fens:
push #, (hold shift), p, right click new patrol route, (release shift) left click.
they return to a patrolling pattern different from the origional, leaving even MORE lines of patrol on the map
unit groups, and patrol patters = ubar wtf pwn air d-fens
the sukky part is when mobile AA flak tanks roll in... then its like, "omgwtf noes d-fens!"
If one has time to cue up enough fighters to patrol their own base like you say then the enemy had far more than enough time to strike massive blows. Like I've tried to demonstrate in simplest terms, in order to play like that you have to have a fundementally laid back gameplay. Roaming fighters act as good spotters for SAM units, but they hardly act as interceptors other than in happenchance.
AF, your example isn't realistic in competitive gameplay for reasons cited above. I could care less about supcom. And who the hell are you to comment on my choice of words?
Thor, actually I said this addition would help with micromanagement. If using patrol routes is a good plan for you then so be it. I'm looking for new methods. Ever play the game Fighter Command? It would be sweet if Spring could eventually handle complex and large air unit groups like that old 8-bit game. It only handled the operations of a couple of hundred air squadrons at a time, so why couldn't Spring?
1v0ry_k1ng, that is good advice but has limitations. The spread out air units handle spotting duties well. Eventually I hope Spring can handle all sorts of weapons that portray air development, moving from guns to rockets to tailchasers to semi-active homing and so on through to the active homing generation missiles. The limitations of these weapons will make simple patrolling swarms unworthwhile. Without some way to help the player micromanage their interceptors then the ideas have to remain overly simple. Otherwise one would have no realistic reason to build them at all.
LathanStanley, your method is how I used to play the AI in TA back when tauip was all the rage. It always worked against the AI until you have to intercept masses of bombers hidden by airborne jammers only to find out your guys flew over some of their air defenses on the way. Otherwise one might as well use fighters as simple spotters along a base's perimeter backed by long range SAMs, short range SAM's, and flakkers. In my mod flakkers won't resemble OTA flakkers by any means. And weapons are going to be less brutal against swarms, meaning 1-v-1 unit handling will be warranted. Spread out your forces too much and the bombers get through. Bunch your forces too much and the bombers get through. Having an aid that helps manage large numbers would be a big plus.
AF, your example isn't realistic in competitive gameplay for reasons cited above. I could care less about supcom. And who the hell are you to comment on my choice of words?
Thor, actually I said this addition would help with micromanagement. If using patrol routes is a good plan for you then so be it. I'm looking for new methods. Ever play the game Fighter Command? It would be sweet if Spring could eventually handle complex and large air unit groups like that old 8-bit game. It only handled the operations of a couple of hundred air squadrons at a time, so why couldn't Spring?
1v0ry_k1ng, that is good advice but has limitations. The spread out air units handle spotting duties well. Eventually I hope Spring can handle all sorts of weapons that portray air development, moving from guns to rockets to tailchasers to semi-active homing and so on through to the active homing generation missiles. The limitations of these weapons will make simple patrolling swarms unworthwhile. Without some way to help the player micromanage their interceptors then the ideas have to remain overly simple. Otherwise one would have no realistic reason to build them at all.
LathanStanley, your method is how I used to play the AI in TA back when tauip was all the rage. It always worked against the AI until you have to intercept masses of bombers hidden by airborne jammers only to find out your guys flew over some of their air defenses on the way. Otherwise one might as well use fighters as simple spotters along a base's perimeter backed by long range SAMs, short range SAM's, and flakkers. In my mod flakkers won't resemble OTA flakkers by any means. And weapons are going to be less brutal against swarms, meaning 1-v-1 unit handling will be warranted. Spread out your forces too much and the bombers get through. Bunch your forces too much and the bombers get through. Having an aid that helps manage large numbers would be a big plus.
madrat, we do play competitively, and it doesnt take much tiem at all.
Build an airfac, click on it, issue a patrol with it surrounding your base, set repeat on, build fighters, forget about it for the rest of the game.
It doesnt take long, ti takes say 5 or 6 seconds once its built.
And ontop of that, soemone whois silly enough to not build an air defence perimeter on the ground or scout planes in theri air patrol deserves to have a fleet of bombers attack. You really dotn realize how it works, fighters move faster than you think and if radar in a transport plus bobmers works then you havent built enough fighters anyway and your enemy might aswell just build enough fighters to overwhelm your own fighters and claim air supriority while going *hahaha you aint built anti air defences!*.
Look at real life, the US and russia never relied solely on fighters, instead they had anti air emplacements and complex ground systems for shooting down aircraft.
Trust the people with the star ranks and the 10k+ minutes fo game experience who play almost daily, who surf the forums for the last 2 years, who develop mods and have seen the code for themselves. We're a much better source than someone who doesnt listen. If your qualms other our tactics had any merit, we would have seen them and stopped using them so we could carry on winning games. These are tried and tested strategies to air unit control.
Build an airfac, click on it, issue a patrol with it surrounding your base, set repeat on, build fighters, forget about it for the rest of the game.
It doesnt take long, ti takes say 5 or 6 seconds once its built.
And ontop of that, soemone whois silly enough to not build an air defence perimeter on the ground or scout planes in theri air patrol deserves to have a fleet of bombers attack. You really dotn realize how it works, fighters move faster than you think and if radar in a transport plus bobmers works then you havent built enough fighters anyway and your enemy might aswell just build enough fighters to overwhelm your own fighters and claim air supriority while going *hahaha you aint built anti air defences!*.
Look at real life, the US and russia never relied solely on fighters, instead they had anti air emplacements and complex ground systems for shooting down aircraft.
Trust the people with the star ranks and the 10k+ minutes fo game experience who play almost daily, who surf the forums for the last 2 years, who develop mods and have seen the code for themselves. We're a much better source than someone who doesnt listen. If your qualms other our tactics had any merit, we would have seen them and stopped using them so we could carry on winning games. These are tried and tested strategies to air unit control.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
