Air Superiority Rules Different for Scramble

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Support and Troubleshooting
  Air Superiority Rules Different for Scramble

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Air Superiority Rules Different for Scramble

ViVicdi posted 03-25-99 12:25 AM ET
This inconsistency relates to fighters. I have posted a message about it before, during version 2, but in version 3 the bug persists.
Fighters attacking bombers on the fighter's turn get weapon-vs-armor + 100% for "Air Superiority".
Fighters attacking bombers during an air defense scramble on the bomber's turn get weapon-vs-weapon, with NO "Air Superiority" bonus.
This has the effect of severely penalizing the air defense scramble, where a fighter's odds of bringing down a bomber, all things being equal, is 50/50, while the same battle occurring while the bomber awaits its turn to return to base is a hands-down win for the fighter.
Surely this was not intentional?
Also, fighters without "Air Superiority" are nonetheless able to attack locusts, and the "Empath +50%" is not properly applied when air units attack locusts.
micje posted 03-30-99 07:50 AM ET
What always surprized me is that fighters vs bombers in the air have it EASIER than fighters against bombers in a base. Bombers in a base defend with their armor + aerospace complex and tachyon field bonus. They still lose of course, but when they're stationed on the ground they're a harder target than in the air??? That is completely illogical.
BTW, why do interceptors get a +100% A-A bonus? That bonus suggests that they need it. But I can't think of a situation where interceptors get the bonus and need it too.
Example:
Quantum fighter attacks quantum bomber without armor. odds: 32 to 1.
Quantum fighter scrambles against quantum bomber. No A-A bonus. odds: 1 to 1.
Only if you have a missile interceptor and you attack a bomber with stasis generator does the A-A bonus make sense. But building a bomber with stasis generator is EXPENSIVE. Better build an extra interceptor and park it over the bomber.
A decent fix would be to have bombers attacked in air defend with their weapons, and on the ground with their armor.
Another stupid thing. Take a base with a aerospace complex + tachyon field. Inside are a AAA stasis unit and a badly damaged interceptor. Now attack the base with an interceptor. Suicide? No: the badly interceptor will scramble and get shot down.
ViVicdi posted 03-31-99 12:31 AM ET
The 100% Air Superiority bonus is obvious -- fighters, all other things being equal, are better at air combat than bombers.
They "need" it if, as the rules state, all "air combat" is weapon-vs-weapon.
micje posted 04-01-99 09:52 AM ET
Please read my post before you reply.
The point is that NOT all air-combat is weapon-weapon. You NEVER get +100% bonus in weapon-weapon combat, but ONLY in weapon-armor combat (when you don't need it). And I wonder if that is really the intention of Firaxis.
FIRAXIS: Speak up! Bug or Feature?
ViVicdi posted 04-02-99 02:42 AM ET
My statement was subjunctive:
IF the game were patched so that all Air Combat is weapon-vs-weapon as specified in the rules,
THEN the 100% Air Superiority advantage would be needed, to give fighters an advantage over bombers.
I should have spelled it out more clearly, I guess. It seems to me the designers intended all air combat to be weapon-vs-weapon, with Air Superiority always conferring a 100% advantage which would cancel out by virtue of going to both sides in a fighter-vs-fighter air combat, but they lapsed in their execution and we got what we got instead.
PhysicsMan posted 04-03-99 04:02 AM ET
I am very curious how you two arrived at the conclusion that air combat is not being resloved with weapons only. Are your numbers empirical? Did you extrapolate your formulas from the combat odds displayed before combat? How are you certain of your formulas?
Aside from this, common sense dictates that interceptors are far superior in air to air combat than bombers (the need for +100% air superiority) and bombers are far superior in air to surface combat (the -50% penalty for interceptors against ground targets). However, it is very unrealistic to assume an aircraft could defend itself on the ground at all. All aircraft should be severely penalized for defending "on the runway".

I am guessing the computer "converts" the air unit into a "land" unit while in a base for combat (the computer may have no other way allowing land and sea units w/o air superiority to attack air units in a base). This would explain why an air unit receives all of the benefits of a land unit inside a base. Also, if air combat is taking place as weapons vs. armor then again the program probably thinks one of the air units is a "land" unit for the purpose of combat.

Additional evidence from other postings suggests there is a real problem with air combat and the "on alert" command for interceptors. Let's hope firaxis has taken notice and fixes the problem uniformally one way or another for the sake of good gameplay.
ViVicdi posted 04-08-99 02:19 PM ET
Well, Mr. PhysicsMan, I have found direct observation to be far more efficient and accurate than extrapolating formulas. Perhaps you should try it some time
Seriously, on the battle resolution graphics the attack, defense, and odds are displayed while the battle takes place. All of my data came from these displays.
I think your "runway penalty" is fine, but should only apply to bombers. (Fighters would scramble.) The "caught in port" penalty for ships is also a precedent for your suggestion.
As for returning bombers, they wouldn't be on land, yet they defend with their armor value rather than weapon. As I mentioned before, however, an attacking bomber intercepted by a scramble gets its weapon value, while the interceptor does NOT get the 100% "Air Superiority" bonus.
sandworm posted 05-06-99 03:08 PM ET
aaah, search before you post, I posted about this same question before looking back more than five days, so I'm only posting here to float this one back up.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Air Superiority Rules Different for Scramble
ViVicdi	posted 03-25-99 12:25 AM ET This inconsistency relates to fighters. I have posted a message about it before, during version 2, but in version 3 the bug persists. Fighters attacking bombers on the fighter's turn get weapon-vs-armor + 100% for "Air Superiority". Fighters attacking bombers during an air defense scramble on the bomber's turn get weapon-vs-weapon, with NO "Air Superiority" bonus. This has the effect of severely penalizing the air defense scramble, where a fighter's odds of bringing down a bomber, all things being equal, is 50/50, while the same battle occurring while the bomber awaits its turn to return to base is a hands-down win for the fighter. Surely this was not intentional? Also, fighters without "Air Superiority" are nonetheless able to attack locusts, and the "Empath +50%" is not properly applied when air units attack locusts.
micje	posted 03-30-99 07:50 AM ET What always surprized me is that fighters vs bombers in the air have it EASIER than fighters against bombers in a base. Bombers in a base defend with their armor + aerospace complex and tachyon field bonus. They still lose of course, but when they're stationed on the ground they're a harder target than in the air??? That is completely illogical. BTW, why do interceptors get a +100% A-A bonus? That bonus suggests that they need it. But I can't think of a situation where interceptors get the bonus and need it too. Example: Quantum fighter attacks quantum bomber without armor. odds: 32 to 1. Quantum fighter scrambles against quantum bomber. No A-A bonus. odds: 1 to 1. Only if you have a missile interceptor and you attack a bomber with stasis generator does the A-A bonus make sense. But building a bomber with stasis generator is EXPENSIVE. Better build an extra interceptor and park it over the bomber. A decent fix would be to have bombers attacked in air defend with their weapons, and on the ground with their armor. Another stupid thing. Take a base with a aerospace complex + tachyon field. Inside are a AAA stasis unit and a badly damaged interceptor. Now attack the base with an interceptor. Suicide? No: the badly interceptor will scramble and get shot down.
ViVicdi	posted 03-31-99 12:31 AM ET The 100% Air Superiority bonus is obvious -- fighters, all other things being equal, are better at air combat than bombers. They "need" it if, as the rules state, all "air combat" is weapon-vs-weapon.
micje	posted 04-01-99 09:52 AM ET Please read my post before you reply. The point is that NOT all air-combat is weapon-weapon. You NEVER get +100% bonus in weapon-weapon combat, but ONLY in weapon-armor combat (when you don't need it). And I wonder if that is really the intention of Firaxis. FIRAXIS: Speak up! Bug or Feature?
ViVicdi	posted 04-02-99 02:42 AM ET My statement was subjunctive: IF the game were patched so that all Air Combat is weapon-vs-weapon as specified in the rules, THEN the 100% Air Superiority advantage would be needed, to give fighters an advantage over bombers. I should have spelled it out more clearly, I guess. It seems to me the designers intended all air combat to be weapon-vs-weapon, with Air Superiority always conferring a 100% advantage which would cancel out by virtue of going to both sides in a fighter-vs-fighter air combat, but they lapsed in their execution and we got what we got instead.
PhysicsMan	posted 04-03-99 04:02 AM ET I am very curious how you two arrived at the conclusion that air combat is not being resloved with weapons only. Are your numbers empirical? Did you extrapolate your formulas from the combat odds displayed before combat? How are you certain of your formulas? Aside from this, common sense dictates that interceptors are far superior in air to air combat than bombers (the need for +100% air superiority) and bombers are far superior in air to surface combat (the -50% penalty for interceptors against ground targets). However, it is very unrealistic to assume an aircraft could defend itself on the ground at all. All aircraft should be severely penalized for defending "on the runway". I am guessing the computer "converts" the air unit into a "land" unit while in a base for combat (the computer may have no other way allowing land and sea units w/o air superiority to attack air units in a base). This would explain why an air unit receives all of the benefits of a land unit inside a base. Also, if air combat is taking place as weapons vs. armor then again the program probably thinks one of the air units is a "land" unit for the purpose of combat. Additional evidence from other postings suggests there is a real problem with air combat and the "on alert" command for interceptors. Let's hope firaxis has taken notice and fixes the problem uniformally one way or another for the sake of good gameplay.
ViVicdi	posted 04-08-99 02:19 PM ET Well, Mr. PhysicsMan, I have found direct observation to be far more efficient and accurate than extrapolating formulas. Perhaps you should try it some time Seriously, on the battle resolution graphics the attack, defense, and odds are displayed while the battle takes place. All of my data came from these displays. I think your "runway penalty" is fine, but should only apply to bombers. (Fighters would scramble.) The "caught in port" penalty for ships is also a precedent for your suggestion. As for returning bombers, they wouldn't be on land, yet they defend with their armor value rather than weapon. As I mentioned before, however, an attacking bomber intercepted by a scramble gets its weapon value, while the interceptor does NOT get the 100% "Air Superiority" bonus.
sandworm	posted 05-06-99 03:08 PM ET aaah, search before you post, I posted about this same question before looking back more than five days, so I'm only posting here to float this one back up.